Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 210. 2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram, in I.O.P.No.42 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The petitioners herein filed I.O.P.No.42 of 2003 seeking permission of the Sub Court to file the suit informa pauperis claiming damages to a tune of Rs.12,39,000/- during the year 2003. The trial Court enquired into the pauperism of the petitioners/plaintiffs herein and arrived at the conclusion that they should pay the court fee. The Court also stipulated a time limit of one month for payment of Court fee after dismissing the I.O.P.No.42 of 2003. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the lower Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would develop his argument to the effect that as of now it is palpably and pellucidly clear by virtue of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Amendment, that Sub Court is having jurisdiction upto Rs.5,00,000/- and if it exceeds Rs.5,00,000/-, then the suit should be filed only before the District Court. As on the date of filing of I.O.P. during the year 2003, the Sub Court had jurisdiction over the matter, however, before the Sub Court gave its verdict on 25th October 2007 relating to pauperism of the petitioners/plaintiffs the Civil Courts Amendment Act had already come into vogue. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would raise the pertinent question that now the suit could be filed only before the District Court and in such a case, the finding relating to pauperism of the Sub Court should not be held to be good and the District Court should have the liberty to go into the pauperism of the petitioners and decide the same. Since it is clear that now the suit would not be maintainable before the Sub Court, the findings relating to pauperism as per the order dated 210. Since it is clear that now the suit would not be maintainable before the Sub Court, the findings relating to pauperism as per the order dated 210. 2007 would not hold good and accordingly the following direction is given: "The lower Court is directed to return the plaint for being presented before the District Court concerned by making usual legal endorsements, whereupon the party shall present it before the District Court which shall go into the pauperism of the petitioners and decide the matter as per law untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in disposing of this revision petition." Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.