JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of the revisional court by which the revision has been allowed with regard to issues No.4 and 5 which was with regard to the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee. At the trial stage, the trial court decided the issues holding that the valuation had correctly been made as no material has been shown by the defendants against the valuation made by the plaintiff. The said suit was for permanent injunction being suit No.2169 of 1993. Written statement etc. were filed and issues were framed. Against the decision upon the issues No.4 and 5 by the order dated 7.8.2009, a revision is said to have been filed and the revisional court taking into account the prevalent circle rate of the area at the relevant time held that the suit was not properly valued and remanded the matter back to the trial court to reconsider the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of the revisional court is without jurisdiction as the revisional court has no authority or power to accept any additional evidence which was never produced before the trial court. It is submitted that the additional evidence apart from trial court can be accepted only under O.41 R.27 CPC and the revisional court had no jurisdiction to accept such a document. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that additional evidence can be accepted at the appellate court but when the court relies upon a public document, that is, circle rate prevalent for determination of the court fee, in my view, it would not be inappropriate. The dispute of the court fee is between the court and the litigant and if the court comes to the conclusion that apparently the suit has been undervalued and less court fee has been paid, which can be reflected from a public document, that is, circle rate, then in my view, the same can be taken into account under section 115 CPC. In the current facts and circumstances, I decline to exercise my discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the current facts and circumstances, I decline to exercise my discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Tryst Hana Nashud Waqf Vs. Lakshmi Talkies and others 2011 AWC Vol.1 p.83 by which the Supreme Court has held that the circle rate is only relevant under the Stamp Act. In the aforesaid decision, the question was with regard to the admissible rent for the house in question which was to be determined by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate held that the circle rate was on the higher side and determined the rent at lowerer rate. The Court held that the said circle rate is only for the purpose of stamp rules and cannot be a determining factor for determining the rent. 6. In the present case, the suit is undervalued and the petitioner has valued the suit even less than the circle rate which is a general rate prevalent in the area and is revised and changed from time to time and the trial court holding that at least the circle rate would be an indicator for the valuation of the suit, has not committed any mistake, as such the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case. However, if the petitioner takes any objection before the trial court, the trial court may decide the same uninfluenced by the observations of this Court. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.