ORDER 1. This revision application has been filed under section 115 of CPC against the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by 4th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Katni in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15/2006 whereby the appeal filed on behalf of plaintiffs has been rejected and order dated 13.12.2005 passed by learned Second Civil Judge, Class-II Katni in Civil Suit No. 141A/2005 returning the plaint to the plaintiffs to present in the proper Court has been affirmed. 2. Looking to the short point involved in the revision, the facts in detail are not narrated. Suffice it to say that by claiming 5/12th share in the suit property the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that sale-deed dated 1.5.2005 executed by defendents 2 and 3 in favour of first defendant is against the law and is void and on the basis of said sale-deed the defendent No. 1 did not become sole owner of the shop marked as ‘A’, ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘H’ because the plaintiffs are having 5/12th share in it. A decree of permanent injunction has also been sought that first defendent with the help of her husband, other relatives and well-wishers may not dismantle the ‘A’, ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘H’ portion and its nature may not be changed and further no alienation of suit property be made by her. 3. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by first defendant, but learned trial Court by exercising power under Order VII Rule 10 CPC passed a decree returning the plaint to the plaintiffs to present it before the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. The Misc. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the impugned order. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the applicants. 4. The contention of learned senior counsel for applicants is that since the plaintiffs are claiming 5/12th share in the suit property, therefore by putting its valuation the proper valuation has been made and proper court fee has also been paid. However, Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the plaintiffs are wrongly claiming 5/12th share and indeed they do not have any share in the entire suit property. Thus, learned trial Court has rightly directed the plaintiffs to file the plaint before the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. However, Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the plaintiffs are wrongly claiming 5/12th share and indeed they do not have any share in the entire suit property. Thus, learned trial Court has rightly directed the plaintiffs to file the plaint before the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. Shri Jain further submits that first defendant bought the property in question for Rs. 3 lac and therefore accordingly the valuation and court fee ought to have been affixed and paid. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel submits that for the residential portion of suit property a separate suit is filed which is pending. The present suit is filed only in respect to one shop in which the plaintiffs are claming 5/12th share. 5. Be that as it may. The valuation of the suit is to be ascertained on the averments made in the plaint and in this regard there is a decision of Supreme Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245 . On bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint as well to the relief clause this Court finds that as per the relief sought in the plaint by the plaintiffs, they are claiming 5/12th share in the suit shop which is only one in number. Therefore, I am of the view that prima facie it cannot be said today specially when the written-statement has not been filed and objections are not raised in the trial Court raising the plea that correct valuation of even 5/12th share is not made. So far as the relief claimed by the plaintiffs that they are claiming 5/12th share in one shop as well as averments in regard to valuation of suit property is concerned, I am of the view that presently nothing can be said that suit has been properly valued or not, hence at the threshold the plaint could not have been returned back to plaintiffs to file it before the proper Court. The defendants shall be free to raise all these objections including proper valuation, proper court fee and also in regard to maintainability of suit in all respect. If all these objections are raised in the written-statement, certainly the learned trial Court will frame necessary issues and after recording the evidence shall decide those issues is accordance with law. The defendants shall be free to raise all these objections including proper valuation, proper court fee and also in regard to maintainability of suit in all respect. If all these objections are raised in the written-statement, certainly the learned trial Court will frame necessary issues and after recording the evidence shall decide those issues is accordance with law. However, at the threshold the plaint cannot be returned to the plaintiffs. 6. Resultantly, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed by two Courts below are hereby set aside and the trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the trial. No costs.