ORDER A.S. Pachhapure, J.— The petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below on Issue No. 2 holding that the Court fee paid on the plaint is sufficient. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under : Respondents 1(a) to (e) are the legal representatives of deceased Syed Mohammed the first Respondent and a suit was instituted by them in O.S. No. 1450/1994 seeking the relief of declaration of ownership on the basis of a Will dated 9.6.1947 and to set aside the registered sale deed dated 6.4.1984 and for declaration that the lease deed is not binding on the Plaintiffs, So also, he has claimed the relief of perpetual injunction. 3. Initially, the suit was for permanent injunction and in the year 1997. the Plaintiffs i.e., Respondents 1 (a) to (e) herein filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of declaration. The said application was allowed and the Plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint. When the plaint was amended, the Plaintiffs had to pay additional court fee for the relief of declaration and in the circumstances, as the Plaintiffs had paid court fee of Rs. 1,29,850/-, he submitted a calculation memo valuing the property at the rate of Rs. 2800/-sq. ft. The memo of calculation was objected by the Petitioner (4th Defendant) on the ground that the Plaintiffs have to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of the amendment of the plaint or on the date of the application for amendment of the plaint which was filed on 1.12.1997. The Trial Court heard the respective counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record answered the issue in favour of the Plaintiffs holding that the Court fee paid on the plaint is sufficient. Aggrieved by the order, the present petition has been filed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 (a) to (e). 5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the amendment application seeking the relief of declaration was filed in the year 1997 and therefore the Plaintiffs have to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of amendment and not the value as on the date of the suit. 5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the amendment application seeking the relief of declaration was filed in the year 1997 and therefore the Plaintiffs have to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of amendment and not the value as on the date of the suit. Therefore, he contends that the Court below committed an error in answering the issue in favour of the Plaintiffs. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned order. 7. It is well established principle of law that whenever an amendment of the plaint is permitted, it relates back to the date of the institution of the suit, unless the Court otherwise specify a date from which it has to come into effect. So far as the amendment granted in favour of the Plaintiffs in this suit, it appears that there is no such specific date mentioned by the Court from which date the amendment would take effect. In such circumstances, when the amendment relates back to the date of the institution of the suit, the Court fee will have to be paid by the Plaintiffs on the market value as on the date of the suit. 8. The counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision reported in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another, ILR 2002 KAR 5055 wherein the relief of declaration was sought to be included by filing an application for amendment of the plaint under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 Code of Code of Civil Procedure and there was a defense about inordinate delay in filing the application. In these circumstances. it is held by the Apex Court that the interest of the Defendant can be protected by directing that the relief sought to be added shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment was filed. So when there is such a specific order, the Plaintiffs have to pay the court fee on the value of the property as on the date the amendment came into effect. But there is no such order in the case on hand and applying the general rule regarding the amendment, it relates to the date of he institution of the suit. But there is no such order in the case on hand and applying the general rule regarding the amendment, it relates to the date of he institution of the suit. It is under these circumstances that the Trial Court has taken a decision holding that the Court fee paid is improper as the valuation of the suit property was made as on the date when the suit came to be instituted. 9. The counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Manicklal Verma and Another Vs. Smt. Jamunadevi and Others, AIR 2002 Kant 332 wherein there was an issue with regard to the valuation which was decided by the Trial Court and this Court held that the remedy available to the aggrieved party is by way of an appeal and a revision petition is not maintainable. 10. So also, in S. Mohammed Omar vs. Saran Bi and Others, ILR 1973 KAR 1134 this Court taking into consideration the provisions of Section 11(4) and Section 35(1) of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act held that under Section 11(4) of the Act, an adequate remedy is provided to challenge the order in appeal on the disposal of the suit and when such a question is raised, the appellate Court would be competent to consider the correctness of the Order affecting the court fee payable on the plaint. In these circumstances this Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In Kanala Narasamma Vs. Nanjappa, ILR (1992) KAR 951 this Court held that the quanturn of court fee payable if it is contested by the Court and it is paid, there is no question of reopening the matter. 12. Further, this Court in a decision reported in 1970 M. L.J. 137 Short Notes (Item No. 325) held that the Defendants had no right to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court with regard to the payment of the Court fee. 13. 12. Further, this Court in a decision reported in 1970 M. L.J. 137 Short Notes (Item No. 325) held that the Defendants had no right to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court with regard to the payment of the Court fee. 13. So placing reliance on the above decisions, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that a revision is not maintainable under Section 115 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure and when there is an efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner to question the sufficiency of the court fee, that could be done even when an appeal is preferred after the final disposal of the suit. Though this Court has held that a revision petition is not maintainable as the writ petition has been filed in the year 2009 and more than a year time has elapsed, I think that instead of considering the question of maintainability, it is just and proper to consider the validity of the order of the Trial Court on the issue. 14. As discussed above, applying the general rule regarding the amendment, it shall relate back to the date of tire institution of the suit and in the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to hold that the Court fee paid is improper. In that view of the matter, as there is no merit in this petition, it is dismissed accordingly.