COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in these two petitions being common, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. These petitions are directed against the orders passed on IA Nos.2 and 3 filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS Nos.206/2015 and 200/2015 respectively filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti. 3. On service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since the plaintiff in respect of non–agricultural land, valued the suit at the market value of Rs.1,000/-. IA Nos.2 and 3 have also been filed by the respective defendants under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of CPC praying for rejection of the plaint as the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court below rejected the applications holding that the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction and value of the suit made at Rs.1,000/- could be proper. Being aggrieved, the defendants are in civil revision petition before this Court. 4. Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would vehemently contend that the suit property is nonagricultural land. The question of valuing the suit at Rs.1,000/- as if it is agricultural land would be perverse and capricious. The plaintiff has not produced any material evidence(document) to establish the market value of the suit property. In OS No.123/2015 filed by the plaintiff before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, the plaintiff has shown the market value of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of Court fee. The said suit having been withdrawn by the plaintiff with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court, filing of the suit before the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.), Banahatti valuing the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as Court fee at Rs.1,000/- is contrary to the stance taken by the plaintiff in the earlier suit. This vital aspect was not appreciated in a right perspective by the Court below while rejecting the applications filed by the defendants/petitioners. This vital aspect was not appreciated in a right perspective by the Court below while rejecting the applications filed by the defendants/petitioners. It is contended that the suit has to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction in terms of Section 7(2)(B) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act’) and for the purpose of Court fee, it has to be valued under Section 26 of the Act. 5. According to the learned counsel, the suit ought to have been filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, who had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, even any defence taken by the defendants in the written statement in earlier suit in OS No.123/2015 filed by the plaintiff would not be a criteria for the plaintiff to file the suits before the Court having no jurisdiction. The plaintiff is the master of his suit, decision has to be taken by him to choose the Court having appropriate jurisdiction to try the suit. The order passed by the Court below without adverting to this factual aspect and well settled legal position on this point is perverse and requires to be setaside allowing the above petitions. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court: (i) Shrinivas Kenheri Kulkarni Vs. Subbappa Mehetru Nidagalkar, ILR 1976 KAR 1755 (ii) Subrao Ranba Ravalu Kedari Vs. Kallappa Nana Kadapure, 1972 MYSLJ 242 (iii) B S Nagaraj Vs. S. Nanjappa, 1972 MYSLJ(1) 106 (iv) Gowramma Vs. P.Lakshminarayana, 2016(1) KCCR 773 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking bare injunction against the defendants. The suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.11,00,000/- and for the purpose of court fee at Rs.1,000/- in the earlier suit OS No.123/2015. The defence was taken by the defendants in the written statement that there cannot be two valuations for the suit in respect of immovable property for seeking injunction. After the said objections raised by the defendants, the plaintiff moved a memo before the Trial Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. After the said objections raised by the defendants, the plaintiff moved a memo before the Trial Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial Court having accepted the memo filed by the plaintiff permitted him to withdraw the suit to represent the same before the appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction and directed the office to return the documents produced by the plaintiff. Learned counsel would contend that it is well settled legal position that in the case of injunction there cannot be two valuations i.e. one for the purpose of jurisdiction and the other for the purpose of Court fee. In view of the same, both suits were filed before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Banahatti, since the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee was Rs.1,000/-, the suit being for bare injunction. The same having been accepted by the Court below, rejected the applications filed by the defendants objecting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The impugned order is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of (i) Town Municipal Council, Chittapur Vs. Chandrakant and others, CRP NO.2037/2012 disposed of on 18.02.2015 and (ii) Sri. Neelagiriyappa S/o Mallappa Mattur and Others Vs. Sri. Channabasavva W/o Yallappa Hugar, CRP No.1095/2013, disposed of on 9.2.2015. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discernible that the defendants filed IA No.2 in OS No.200/2015 and IA No.3 in OS No.206/2015 before the Court below under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of CPC praying to reject the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. As could be ascertained, the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of CPC itself is not maintainable. Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC deals with the return of plaint. Invoking of wrong provision seeking rejection of plaint is unsustainable. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as contemplated can be invoked as per clause (a) to (e) referred to therein. It is settled legal position that the plaint can be rejected only on the averment of the plaint and not on the defence taken in the written statement or objections. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as contemplated can be invoked as per clause (a) to (e) referred to therein. It is settled legal position that the plaint can be rejected only on the averment of the plaint and not on the defence taken in the written statement or objections. But apparently, the defendants have invoked the powers of the Court under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of CPC. Return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC can be invoked by the plaintiff not by the defendants. The applications filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint requires to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Court below had examined the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in OS No.123/2015 while permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and present the same before the appropriate Court. It is trite that the Court of the Senior Civil Judge being the appellate Court to the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge having attained finality, the learned Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) is incumbent to entertain the suit, in view of the order of the appellate Judge. It is significant to note that both the suits filed by the plaintiff are for bare injunction. For the purpose of Court fee, suit has to be valued at Rs.1,000/- as per Section 26(c) of the Act. In such circumstances, there cannot be two valuations, one for the purpose of Court fee and another for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court. This Court in the case of Town Municipal Council (supra), placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Subrao Ranba Ravalu Kedari (supra), has categorically held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction shall be the same and it cannot be different. It was further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of B.S. Nagaraj (supra), wherein it was held that the suit for the purpose of the Court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be different and considering the factual matrix of the case, entertaining of the suit was set-aside and the lower Court was directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court. Considering the above aspects, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be two valuations in a suit for injunction for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction under Section 26(c) of the Act. Similar view is taken by this Court in the case of Neelagiriyappa (supra), wherein this Court has held that value to be fixed for the purpose of payment of court fees, that alone can be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court in a suit for permanent injunction. In the case of Gowramma and others (supra), this Court while considering the suit for declaration determined the court fee payable, where the suit properties lost agricultural character as they were found in residential layout, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the present case is only for bare injunction and not for any declaration of title. As aforesaid, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are all considered by this Court in the judgment of Town Municipal Council (supra) and Neelagiriyappa (supra) and negatived the contentions of two valuations as far as jurisdiction and the Court fee. 8. In view of the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaint presented before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Banahatti is appropriate and the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Court below. The revision petitions stand dismissed as devoid of merit.