ORDER ARAVIND KUMAR, J.-Heard Sri Namadev Sitaram Badiger @ Shahapur appearing as party in person. 2. This revision petition under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by the petitioner who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 261/2011 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn), Dharwad whereunder an order came to be passed on 09.12.2011 directing the plaintiff to file fresh valuation slip and pay necessary Court fee as required under Section 21 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCF & SV Act' for brevity) on or before the next date of hearing. 3. Petitioner who is appearing in person would contend that order passed by the trial Court is without application of mind and it ought to have ascertained the difference between recovery of money and demand of deposit and erred in not considering the judgment of this Court rendered in Byrappa vs. Mysore Paper Mills Limited, reported in 2000(4) Kar. L.J. 31. He would contend that Court fee paid by the plaintiff by valuing the suit as provided under Section 47 (ii) of KCF & SV Act is just and proper and trial Court committed a serious error in directing the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 21 of the KCF & SV Act and hence, he seeks for setting aside the said order by allowing this revision petition since there is material irregularity committed by trial Court and non consideration of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in proper perspective. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate who had been directed to take notice of this petition and assist the Court since the issue related to payment of Court fee is involved, would support the order passed by trial Court by contending that suit is one for recovery of money from defendant and as such, direction given by the trial Court to the plaintiff to furnish fresh valuation under Section 21 of the KCF & SV Act and pay the Court fee accordingly is just and proper and does not call for interference. 5. 5. Having heard the petitioner-party in person and learned Government Advocate and on perusal of the records received from the trial Court as well as contentions raised by the petitioner-party in person, the point that arises for my consideration is : "Whether plaintiff was justified in computing valuation of the suit under Section 47 (ii) of KCF & SV Act or whether plaintiff ought to have valued the suit under Section 21 of KCF & SV Act?" 6. Plaintiff herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 261/2011 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Dharwad against defendant seeking following prayer: "(12) Prayer: Setting aside all the contentions of defendants if any, it is humbly prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be declare and direct to principal to refund deposit amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- with interest and pass the decree as under: (A) Declare and direct to principal to refund deposit amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- with interest and pass the decree; (B) Cost of the suit may kindly be awarded from defendants; (C) Permission to amend the plaint as and when necessary may kindly be granted to the plaintiff; (D) Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances may kindly be granted to the plaintiff." (Emphasis supplied) 7. A perusal of the plaint averments would indicate that plaintiff has worked as a dealer for Bengal Tools to sell their products Sharachi Power Tiller at Belgaum. It is stated that defendant approached the plaintiff offering C & F agent for their product at Karnataka State and was appointed as C & F agent assuring remuneration of Rs. 9000/- per each tiller sold and assurance from the plaintiff of minimum sales of Rs. 1,50,000/- on plaintiff agreeing to furnish Rs. 12 lakhs as security deposit to the account of defendant. It is stated that pursuant to the said discussion, an agreement was signed on 28.08.2011 and plaintiff is stated to have furnished Rs. 12 lakhs deposit through RTGS by his bank i.e., Central Bank of India to the account of defendant and by such transfer, an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs has been paid to the defendant. It is further contended that since plaintiff was not interested to continue the business with his Principal, he did not continue the business and by demand notice dated 22.10.2011 he demanded refund of Rs. 12 lakhs has been paid to the defendant. It is further contended that since plaintiff was not interested to continue the business with his Principal, he did not continue the business and by demand notice dated 22.10.2011 he demanded refund of Rs. 12 lakhs from the defendant and on account of non payment of the said amount, suit in question has been filed. 8. Plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 47(ii) of KCF & SV Act. Suit in question is a suit for recovery of Rs. 12 lakhs stated to have been paid by plaintiff to defendant as deposit. As such, the suit in question having been filed for recovery of said amount, Section 21 of KCF & SV Act is attracted and Court fee is to be paid on the amount so claimed in the suit. As such, trial Court has rightly held that valuation made by plaintiff under Section 47 (ii) of KCF & SV Act is not correct and has directed the plaintiff to file fresh valuation memo under Section 21 of KCF & SV Act and pay necessary Court fee. Said finding does not suffer from any infirmities whatsoever. 9. Insofar as judgment relied upon by petitioner cited supra, would clearly go to show that in the said suit, certain additional amounts stated to be due by the defendant to plaintiff totalling to a sum of Rs. 2,15,350/-was claimed and the amount which was stated in the plaint was not the amount which was in deposit or is liable to be refunded. It was contended that said amount claimed by the plaintiff was yet to be adjudicated and as such and hence Court fee need not be paid on the said amount claimed. This Court while rejecting the contention of plaintiff therein held that Section 47 of KCF & SV Act is not attracted and held that Court fee is required to be paid under Section 21 of the KCF & SV Act. In the instant case, it cannot be said that merely because the amount is in deposit by way of caution deposit, said deposit of Rs. 12 lakhs would not partake the character of amount claimed in the suit and it requires to be treated as a "suit in question is to be computed as not otherwise provided for". Hence, contention of petitioner-party in person cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 10. 12 lakhs would not partake the character of amount claimed in the suit and it requires to be treated as a "suit in question is to be computed as not otherwise provided for". Hence, contention of petitioner-party in person cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 10. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Revision petition stands dismissed. (ii) Impugned order dated 09.12.2011 passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Dharwad in O.S. No. 261/2011 is hereby affirmed. (iii) Since present revision petition has been filed immediately after the order under revision came to be passed by trial Court, I deem it just and proper to grant one more opportunity i.e., 30 days from today to plaintiff-petitioner to file fresh valuation slip in the suit. (iv) If such fresh valuation slip and necessary Court fee is paid thereof, trial Court shall take up the suit and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. (v) Registry is directed to return the records forthwith to the jurisdictional Court. In view of the revision petition having been dismissed, I.A.I/13 does not survive for consideration and accordingly it is dismissed.