Judgment : This Revision is directed against the order in I.A. No. 20 of 2005 in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 in O.S. No. 304 of 2004 dated 2. 2005 allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants and thereby directing production of guideline value from the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chinnamanur. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. 2. There are two items of suit properties, one is vacant house site S. No. 184 (item No. 1) and another is house bearing new Door No. 75, South Car street, Seepalakottai road, S. No. 215 (item No. 2). Suit properties are situated in one compound shown as ‘ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR’ in the rough sketch filed along with the plaint. 3. Revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 304 of 2004 for the following reliefs: (a) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from constructing any building in the suit properties in item No. 1. (b) Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants from encumbering the suit properties. (c) Recovery of possession of house in item No. 2. 4. Opposing the suit, Defendants have filed I.A. No. 861 of 2004 under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) C.P.C. seeking for rejection of suit. In the supporting-affidavit, defendants have averred that the suit properties were not valid properly and was under valued. Alleging that the suit properties were not valid properly and that if the properties are properly valued, Munsif Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit, respondents/defendants have filed application I.A. No. 861 of 2004 to reject the plaint. 5. Defendants have also filed three documents obtained from VAO showing that the properties were worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/-, to substantiate their averment that the properties were under valued. 6. Along with I.A. No. 861 of 2004, Respondents have also filed I.A. No. 20 of 2005 Under Section 75 C.P.C invoking power of the Court to issue summons to Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur to produce the guideline value for the suit properties and to produce the Book containing guideline value for the properties in Chinnamanur. 7. Observing that the market value of the property could be ascertained from the guideline value maintained by the Sub Registrar, learned District Munsif allowed the application and directed production of guideline value register from Sub Registrar Office, Chinnamanur which is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition. 8. 7. Observing that the market value of the property could be ascertained from the guideline value maintained by the Sub Registrar, learned District Munsif allowed the application and directed production of guideline value register from Sub Registrar Office, Chinnamanur which is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court failed to see that the Defendants are not entitled to question the valuation of the plaint at the stage and the Court has to take into account the plaint averments and the valuation given by the Plaintiffs. Placing reliance upon G. Krishnamurthy and two Others v. Sarangapani and Another, (1996) 1 MLJ 533 : 1996 (1) CTC 280 learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further contend that the suit being one for recovery of possession is based on the market value and under Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, plaintiffs have to pay Court fees on the market value and while so, calling for guideline value is illegal. 9. Inspite of service of notice, respondents/defendants have not entered in appearance. Mr. L. Gunasekaran, learned counsel was appointed through Legal Services Authority. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the objection to the Court is not taken at the earlier stage, it may not be possible for the defendants to raise objection. It was further argued that under Section 7(2)(g) read with Section 30 of Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, plaintiffs have to pay the Court fees as pay the market value. It was further argued that for determining the market value, there is nothing wrong for the Court to call for the guideline value register and the impugned order is well in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the same cannot be interfered with. 11. Placing reliance upon G. Krishnamurthy and two Others v. Sarangapani and Another (supra) firstly learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that the issue regarding Court fees is between, the Court and suitor and that defendants have got no say in payment of Court fees. 11. Placing reliance upon G. Krishnamurthy and two Others v. Sarangapani and Another (supra) firstly learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that the issue regarding Court fees is between, the Court and suitor and that defendants have got no say in payment of Court fees. Referring to the provision of the Act, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that at the time of filing of the suit or Court Fee Examiner can raise the objection as to payment of Court fees and defendants have no say regarding payment of Court fees. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs is not right in contending that defendants have no right to say anything about payment of Court fees. Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (for short TNCF & SV Act) contemplates two stages for reaching a decision as to payment of proper Court fees i.e. before registering the plaint, Court shall on the materials furnished and the averments made in the plaint, decide the proper fee payable. The next stage is when the defendant enters the picture and raises the question of Court fee before the first hearing of the shit or the recording of evidence on the merits of the claim. The possible third stage is when under Section 18 of TNCF & SV Act, the Court Fee examiner raises an objection. 13. As per Section 12(2) of TNCF & SV Act where the issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue or law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court. Trial Court can direct to value the suit properties only before the evidence is recorded under Section 12(2) of TNCF & SV Act and not after the evidence is recorded in the suit. After commencement of suit and recording of evidence, it is not open to the Defendant to plead that the suit is not properly valued or sufficient Court fee has not been paid. At this stage, Court will not take up this as preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. 14. Section 12(2) of TNCF & SV Act cloths the defendant with a right to plead that the subject matter has not been properly valued. At this stage, Court will not take up this as preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. 14. Section 12(2) of TNCF & SV Act cloths the defendant with a right to plead that the subject matter has not been properly valued. While so, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs is not right contending that defendants have got no say and that defendants have no right to raise objection regarding valuation of the suit and payment of Court fees. 15. Insofar as, valuation of the suit properties, suit properties are in two items: (i) vacant site in S. No. – 184; (ii) house in New Door No. 75 in S. No. 215 situated at Chinnamanur village. Plaintiffs have valued the suit for the reliefs as follows: .(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from constructing any building in the suit properties in item No. 1 (S. No. 184) – Value at Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 27(c) and paid Court fees of Rs. 75.50; .(b) Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants from encumbering the suit properties – Valued at Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 27(c) and paid Court fees of Rs. 75.50; and .(c) Recovery of possession of house in item No. 2 (S. No. 215) – Valued at Rs. 30,000/-Under Section 30 and paid Court fees of Rs. 2,250.50. 16. Main objection of the respondents/defendants is that the suit properties both item No. 1 and 2 are not properly valued and that the suit properties are under valued. Insofar, as first relief (a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction in the suit property (item No. 1), the relief is intangible and is evidently incapable of valuation. As far as relief (a) is concerned, the suit properly was correctly valued Under Section 27(c) of TNCF & SV Act, Insofar, as relief (b) is concerned, it is Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching the suit properties which again is an intangible relief and correctly valued Under Section 27(c) of TNCF & SV Act. 17. Main objection raised is in respect of valuation of property for recovery of possession of house in suit item No. 2. 17. Main objection raised is in respect of valuation of property for recovery of possession of house in suit item No. 2. The terms of Section 30 of TNCF & SV Act are as follows:- “In a suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher.” The question which arises for consideration is when Section 30 of TNCF & SV Act says fee has to be computed on the market value of the property, how the market value of the property should be ascertained. 18. Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 dealing with determination of market value of immovable property for the purpose of computing the Court fee in suit a relating to the property. Under Section 7(2) of TNCF & SV Act, the market value of the land in suits under Section 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 29, 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be deemed to be where the land is assessed, thirty times the survey assessment on the land and where the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or any other land not; falling under clause (a), its market value. Under Section 25(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on Rs. 300/- whichever is higher. 19. Under Section 7(2)(g) of TNCF & SV Act, where the land is a house-site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or is land not falling under clause (a), Court fee is payable on its market value. 20. The terms ‘market value’ has not been defined in the Act, in the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure. ‘Market Value’ is the value that a property would fetch in the market under a state of things existing at that time and that definition is to be found repeated with great clearness. 21. Observing that the market value is to be computed according to the sale of similarly situated property in the neighbourhood, in D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundaram (1988) 2 MLJ 237 : (1988) 2 LW 161 , it was held as follows at p. 442 of MLJ: “14. 21. Observing that the market value is to be computed according to the sale of similarly situated property in the neighbourhood, in D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundaram (1988) 2 MLJ 237 : (1988) 2 LW 161 , it was held as follows at p. 442 of MLJ: “14. There is no definition of the term ‘market value’ in the Court Fees Act, nor is there any definition in the General Clauses Act. Hence, the term ‘market value’ has to be understood in its plain meaning s in common parlance, i.e., the value which the property will fetch in the market. The term ‘market value’ has occurred in the Land Acquisition Act and Courts have frequently considered what the term ‘market value’ means. The uniform view of the Courts is that ‘market value’ of the property is the value which a willing purchaser will pay to a willing seller having regard to the location and advantages attached to the property and also the potential value thereof, As there is no definition in the Court Fees Act, as such, the definition which has been adopted for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act can be adopted for the purpose of Court Fees Act also. Particularly when Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, provides for the market value being computed on a particular basis with reference to suits for different kinds of lands and is silent with reference to a suit for a building and the land appurtenant thereto, it has to be inferred that the Legislature intended that the computation of market value of buildings and lands attached thereto should be on the basis of the value, the property would fetch in the open market,……….Thus, a reading of the provisions of the Act along with the form prescribed by the government would only lead to the conclusion that the market value of the property to be computed under Section 30 is the value which the property would fetch in the market. Such value can be proved by production of sale deeds of properties similarly situated in the neighbourhood. If such evidence is not available at all, it may be open to the Court to arrive at the market value by capitalization of the income or by multiplying the annual revenue to a particular factor. Such value can be proved by production of sale deeds of properties similarly situated in the neighbourhood. If such evidence is not available at all, it may be open to the Court to arrive at the market value by capitalization of the income or by multiplying the annual revenue to a particular factor. If the evidence with regard to the actual market value is available, in the shape of sale deeds or other dependable evidence, then the Court has to determine the market; value on such basis and not on the basis of capitalization.” Considering the above decision, it is clear that defendants could adduce evidence with regard to the market value in the shape of sale deeds or other dependable evidence and need not call for the guideline value maintained in Sub Registrar’s Office. 22. Even though, Section 12(2) of TNCF & SV Act clothes and Defendants with a right to plead that the subject matter has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, generally only the allegations in the plaint should be the guiding factor. As held by the Supreme Court in Neelavathi and Others v. N. Natarajan and Others AIR 1980 SC 691 that generally, only the allegations in the plait should be the guiding factor to decide on correctness of Court fees. 23. Where the objections are raised that plaint has been under valued, by considering the averments in the plaint. Court will have to ascertain whether Plaintiff has deliberately under valued the property and whether there is any deficit Court fee. As pointed out earlier, for recovery of possession of the suit property item No. 2 (house), revision petitioners/plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 30,000/-. Prima facie there appears to be no deliberate under valuation. .24. The main question falling for consideration is when the defendants have filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(b) C.P.C, whether Court was right in calling for the guideline value for determining the market value of the suit properties. Under Section 19 of TNCF & SV Act, whenever a Court entertains a doubt regarding valuation, it is empowered to appoint an advocate commissioner for assisting the Court in finding out the value. Section 19 of TNCF & SV Act reads as follows: .“19. Under Section 19 of TNCF & SV Act, whenever a Court entertains a doubt regarding valuation, it is empowered to appoint an advocate commissioner for assisting the Court in finding out the value. Section 19 of TNCF & SV Act reads as follows: .“19. Inquiry and commission – For the purpose of deciding whether the subject matter of a suit or other proceedings has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient the Court may hold such inquiry as it considers proper and may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the Court.” .25. When the Court appoints an Advocate-Commissioner for assisting the Court in finding out the value, the question as to who has to pay the commissioner’s fee. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the plaintiff to pay the cost though the Commissioner might no have been appointed as his instance. 26. In Yangala Chetty Tirupathiya v. Copalle, Mangapatby Rao and Others, (1948) 1 MLJ 269 it was held that plaintiff had to pay the costs though the commissioner might not have been appointed at his instance. In the above decision, it was further observed that Court can see to it that unnecessary expense is not incurred i.e. an Amin or some other person who is not likely to demand a high fee may be appointed as commissioner. 27. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, valuation of the suit and its correctness primarily concerns the Court and plaintiff. When the defendants had raised objection as to the valuation of the property, Court could have direct the Court Amin to test the value of the property or appoint Commissioner for ascertaining the value of the property at the cost of plaintiff. 28. In my considered view, trial Court was not right in summoning the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur to produce the guideline value to facilitate: collection of evidence for the defendants in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint. 29. 28. In my considered view, trial Court was not right in summoning the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur to produce the guideline value to facilitate: collection of evidence for the defendants in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint. 29. Placing reliance upon Asmath Kathu v. Lal Khan and Others (2009) 1 MLJ 549 learned counsel for the Respondents contended that no litigant can be permitted to absolve himself at his own whims and fancies, simply by couching the wordings the plaint so to avoid the proper valuation and payment of Court fee. 30. By perusal of the plaint, it is seen that plaintiffs do not seem to have absolve themselves by couching the wordings in the plaint and thereby avoiding proper valuation. As pointed out earlier, for the relief of recovery of possession, under Section 30 of TNCF & SV Act, suit has been valued at Rs. 30,000/-and Court fee of Rs. 2,250.50 has been paid. It can not be said that the property has been deliberately under valued and thereby avoiding to pay the Court fees. .31. In the decision cited supra, and in D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundaram (supra) the market value to be computed according to the sale of similarly situated property in the neighbourhood. Defendants could have proved the actual market value in the shape of sale deeds of surrounding areas or other dependable evidence. To advance their arguments in the application I.A. No. 861 of 2004 without doing so, Defendants were not right in summoning the guideline value register maintained by the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur. The learned trial Judge has not kept in view, Section 19 of TNCF & SV Act and the impugned order summoning the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur to produce the guideline value would be a long drawn process and cannot be sustained market value of the property could be shown before the Court by any such dependable evidence. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this Revision is to be allowed. 32. In the result, the impugned order in I.A. No. 20 of 2005 in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 in O.S. No. 304 of 2004; dated 2. 2005 is set aside and this revision is allowed. I.A. No. 20 of 2005 in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 in O.S. No. 304 of 2004 stands dismissed. 32. In the result, the impugned order in I.A. No. 20 of 2005 in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 in O.S. No. 304 of 2004; dated 2. 2005 is set aside and this revision is allowed. I.A. No. 20 of 2005 in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 in O.S. No. 304 of 2004 stands dismissed. Learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam is directed to take up I.A. No. 861 of 2004 and the suit O.S. No. 304 of 2004 and proceed with the same in accordance with law. The views expressed in this order may not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam is directed to dispose I.A. No. 861 of 2004 and the suit as expeditiously as possible. Interim Stay already granted in C.M.P. No. 4359 of 2004 dated 8. 2005 is vacated and the Petition is closed.