In this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Order Dated 22.3.2014 passed by the Learned District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in C.R.P.No.7 of 2013 confirming the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Bhubaneswar in C.S.No. 466 of 2009 rejecting the application of the Plaintiff-Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the counter claim filed by the Defendant. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, the facts pleaded in the suit are necessary which are as follows: The Petitioner as Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Opp. Party-Defendant from coming upon tile suit land & interfering with the possession till evicted there from in due process of law. The Plaintiff pleaded that her husband was inducted as a tenant & after his death, she is in possession of the ground floor of the house. The said possession was never disturbed by the recorded owner. The Defendant tried to disturb the possession of the Plaintiff illegally on the ground that he has purchased the land. Hence, the suit. 3. The Defendant after receiving summon appeared & filed his written statement taking a stand that he has purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs.28,00,000 & traversed the claim of the Plaintiff & prayed for dismissal of the suit. He has also filed a counter claim for passing a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Petitioner to restore possession in his favour. He valued such relief of counter claim to the tune of Rs.5,000. It is the further plea that the Defendant has purchased the land from his vendor excluding the suit house, as the house in question was in a dilapidated condition & as such the same was not valued. In the counter claim also the Defendant has taken a specific stand that one Joginath Sahoo was a tenant under the recorded owners with respect to the ground floor of the building, who vacated the same at the end of October & handed over the key to the Landlord in the month of November, 2004 with a letter of request on 4.11.2004 to take over the possession & relieve him from tenancy from November, 2004. The Plaintiff is neither a tenant nor a lawfull occupant of the suit premises & the said Joginath Sahoo has duly surrendered the possession & as such the tenancy was terminated from November, 2004. After getting information that the Defendant has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed, some mischief mongers to grab the suit property blackmailed the Defendant & advanced a claim relating to the possession over the ground floor of the building with all evil intention to extend claim covering entire suit property &.obtained ad-interim injunction order from the Court. Thereafter, they broken the lock put in the ground floor & put a lock of their own on the ground floor on 20.12.2009. As there was an order of injunction obtained from the Court, the Defendant having no alternative than to watch such conduct of the Plaintiff, who forcibly entered into the dilapidated premises without any actual use, was nothing, other than the sporadic act of trespasser & the Plaintiff is residing with her paternal family members in Rasulgarh in stead of the suit premises. The Defendant, in the counter claim, has also specifically pleaded that before purchase of the land, there was a wide publication made in the newspaper. Thereafter, formalities of mutation have been dully carried out by the Defendant & a holding number was also allotted & the cause of action of the counter claim arose on 20.12.2009. Therefore, it is impossible to accept that a person in possession could not know all those facts. In view of the above pleading, he has valued the counter claim at Rs.5,000 & relief of mandatory injunction at Rs.500 & Court fee on the said valuation was paid. After receiving the copy of the counter claim, the Petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 11 of the Coded of Civil Procedure to dismiss the said counter claim as the Defendant himself has stated that he has purchased the land at Rs.28,00,000. It is also stated that since the valuation of the counter claim is Rs.28,00,000 the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same & as such it needs to be rejected or return to the Defendant to file a properly constituted suit. Therefore the valuation of the counter claim was unreasonable, arbitrary & as such is liable to be rejected. 4. Therefore the valuation of the counter claim was unreasonable, arbitrary & as such is liable to be rejected. 4. The Defendant has filed objection to the said application taking a stand that the building was a dilapidated condition & the same was all along under its possession. After getting an ad-interim injunction, the Plaintiff has forcibly entered into the suit premises on 20.12.2009 & put lock to the ground floor of the dilapidated building for which the relief of mandatory injunction has been prayed for by the Defendant & as such the Defendant has valued the relief of counter claim properly. Therefore, question of rejecting the counter claim does not arise & the Court has jurisdiction to try the same. 5. Considering the respective pleas of the parties, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the valuation made by the Defendant for the purpose of relief, as disputed by the Plaintiff, can be determined after assessing the evidence during course of trial. The Court has option to ask for required Court fee to be paid by the Defendant, if the same is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court or otherwise, the Court may return the same. Since there are no sufficient material to hold that the relief claimed in the counter claim was undervalued as such rejected the said contention. 6. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed revision. The Revisional Court held that the decision of the Court on the issue of valuation of the suit is final between the parties. However, the Court is required to see the valuation of the suit should not be unreasonable or arbitrary low or undervalued. In that case, the Court may direct the parties to correct it & as the question of valuation involved, the Court below has dealt with all aspects & in absence of any material to assess the valuation, the valuation made by the Defendant at that stage was accepted. On such finding, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the counter claim raised by the Defendant being unreasonable & undervalued, involved a complicated question of title. In support of this contention, he has relied the decisions rendered in the cases of Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. On such finding, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the counter claim raised by the Defendant being unreasonable & undervalued, involved a complicated question of title. In support of this contention, he has relied the decisions rendered in the cases of Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 & M/s. Jagannath Motors & anr v. Rushikulya Gramya Bank & ors, 2007 (II) OLR 521 . In the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) the Apex Court has deprecated the view that valuation of the suit shall be examined at the time of trial is not correct. In the case of M/s. Jagannath Motors & anr (supra) this Court has also taken a similar view. 8. Leaned Counsel for the Opp. Party, .however, submitted that since the counter claim is for mandatory injunction & specifically the Defendant has stated that the Plaintiff has forcibly entered into the premises after breaking the lock on 20.12.2009, during pendency of the suit & there is no dispute regarding title of the Defendant over the land. Hence, the valuation of the counter claim is correct & the impugned order may not be interfered with. 9. Considering the rival submissions of the parties & the plea taken by them in the plaint as well as in the written statement & counter claim, it reveals that the Defendant categorically alleged that the Plaintiff entered into the premises on 20.12.2009 during pendency of the suit & Defendant seeks relief for mandatory injunction, which are subject to trial & parties will prove their respective plea by adducing evidence. The Court below taking into consideration the above position of law correctly passed the impugned order. Therefore, as there is no error apparent on the face of record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The CMP is accordingly dismissed.