JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions claiming following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the", petitioners may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 12.3.2019 (Annex. 4) passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4 Bikaner in civil suit No. 93/2017 and 92/2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 15, Order 7 Rule 10 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure may kindly be allowed." 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction and recovery before the trial court for the plaintiff's property situated at Katla chowk Nokha Tahsil Nokha district Bikaner. The petitioner defendant on the notice being served appeared and controverted the facts. The petitioner defendant filed a application on 8.9.2018 under Section 15 Read with Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC on the ground that the respondent plaintiff had made excess valuation of the suit to make it come under the jurisdiction of Addl. District Judge concern. The only ground of the petitioner for opposing such excess valuation was that he shall loose a chance of appeal. District Judge concern. The only ground of the petitioner for opposing such excess valuation was that he shall loose a chance of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the excess valuation made by the petitioner as apparent in paragraph 10 and 11 of the suit which reads as under:- ^^10- ;g fd okfnuh ba[kyk;k ifjlj dh ekfy;r 20]580@& :i;s dk;e djrh gS ,oa cdk;k fdjk;k 13]720@& :i;s olwyh dh ekfy;r dk;e djrh gS ,oa fpjfu"ks/kkKk dh ekfy;r 4]66]100@& :i;s vkadrh gSA bl izdkj okn dk dqy ewY;kadu 5]00]400@& :i;s dh ekfy;r ij okn izLrqr dj jgh gS ,oa blh vuq:i U;k;'kqYd izLrqr dj jgh gSA 11- ;g fd nkok vUnj fe;kn dkfcy vnkyrokyk ds izLrqr gSA fygktk nkok izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd %& 1- fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh bl vk'k; dh gkfly djs fd izfroknh fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ftlds vkls ikls okni= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa vafdr gS] okds dVyk pkSd uks[kk rglhy uks[kk ftyk chdkusj dk dCtk okfnuh dks lqiwnZ djs ,oa cdk;k fdjk;k vxLr 2017 rd dk :i;k 13]720@& :i;s vnk djs rFkk vkbZUnk rkolqyh dCtk rd Qksj ;qt ,.M vksD;qis'ku isVs :i;k 1715@& :i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls vnk djsA 2- fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh bl vk'k; dh tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknh fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ftldk fooj.k okn i= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa vafdr gS] dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks lcysV ugha djs uk gh mDr ifjlj esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ rksM+ QksM+ ugha djs uk gh dksbZ ,slk Qsy ;k rdZ Qsy djs ftlls okfnuh ds gdwdksa ij dksbZ cqjk vlj iM+rk gksA 3- [kpkZ eqdnek fnyok;k tkos ,oa vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks U;k;ky; mfpr le>s okfnuh dks fnyok;k tkosA^^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the valuation: ought to have been done only as per the rent in question and the valuation done for the permanent injunction to the tune of Rs. 4,66,100/- was excess valuation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Trans Asia Auto and General Finance Ltd. vs. Dhannendar Kumar and Ors. Reported in 2001 (7) AD (Delhi) 598. Relevant para reads as follows:-. "12. The dues that can be. claimed have already been enumerated above. IN this regard the petitioner claims that Rs. 94/000/- was due as hire money and Rs. 57,663/- as compensation charges. Reported in 2001 (7) AD (Delhi) 598. Relevant para reads as follows:-. "12. The dues that can be. claimed have already been enumerated above. IN this regard the petitioner claims that Rs. 94/000/- was due as hire money and Rs. 57,663/- as compensation charges. Recovery for damages for wrongful retention was also claimed accounting of Rs. 72,880/-. Regarding the other amounts for return of the Vehicle in the same condition, the damages caused and damages for breach of the agreement namely Rs. 1,50,000/-, 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively, indeed there was no agreement to recover the same and in that view of the matter the same could not be part of the hire purchase agreement. This conclusion gets further fortification from the fact that even in the notice that was served by the petitioner before filling of the suit the later amounts had not been claimed. The necessary finding, therefore, has to be that the petitioner had undoubtedly exaggerated the amount so as to bring the same within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in that view of the matter will not have the pecuniary jurisdiction because it should have been filed before the appropriate Court." 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he was enjoying the position of dominus litis. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the valuation has been done strictly in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Smt. Tarn Devi vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj reported in AIR 1987 SC 2085 , relevant paras are as under:- "2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that pattas dated 15.12.1948, 1.7.1950, 24.4.1951 and 26.11.1952 executed by Nagendra Prasad Bhagat in the name of defendant No. 1 were illegal, ineffective and not binding oh the plaintiff. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The suit was valued on the basis of the rent payable for the land. The defendant filed a written statement and thereafter raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. The trial Court has held that the suit is governed by Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and the plaintiff has rightly valued the lease hold interest created by the lessee. The trial Court has held that the suit is governed by Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and the plaintiff has rightly valued the lease hold interest created by the lessee. The plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation of. the reliefs claimed. The valuation it has been held, was not arbitrary and unreasonable and as such it was held that the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit and proper court-fee has been paid thereon. 3. Against the judgment and order a Revision Petition being Civil Revn. No. 1385 of 1985 was filed in the High Court, Patna. The said revision petition was admitted arid thereafter it was referred to the Full Bench for decision of the question whether in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under clause (iv) (c) of Sec. 7 of Court fee Act, 1870, the Court has jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff has an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on the relief claimed in such a suit. It has been held by the High Court considering several decisions including the decisions of this Court in Sathppa Chettiar vs. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 as well as Meenakshisundaram Chettiar V. Venkatachalam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989 that the plaintiff has the right to value the relief claimed according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be ordinarily accepted. The plaintiff however, has not been given the absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where the plaintiff manifestly and deliberately underestimates the relief the Court is entitled to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff and to revise the same if it is patently arbitrary or unreasonable. The High Court held that the Munsif came to a clear finding that the valuation given by the plaintiff was not at all arbitrary or unreasonable and as such there was no scope for interference with the said order under. revision. The revision application was so dismissed. 4. The instant special leave petition has been filed against the said order. We have heard the learned counsel and in our considered opinion we do not find any merit in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. revision. The revision application was so dismissed. 4. The instant special leave petition has been filed against the said order. We have heard the learned counsel and in our considered opinion we do not find any merit in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chettiar V. Ramnathan Chettiar (supra) and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar (supra) that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Sec. 9(iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a Consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. The plaintiff has valued the lease hold interest on the basis of the rent. Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the Courts below, is reasonable and the same is not demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of the reliefs. We, therefore, do (not/) find any reason to grant special leave to appeal asked for in the petition as the order passed in the said revision is unexceptional. The special leave petition is therefore dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs:" 7. After, hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the precedent law shown by learned counsel for the respondent is applicable as the plaintiff is true dominus litis and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner due to valuation as the forum chosen shall be equally available to both the parties. 8. This Court has seen the impugned order and observes that even the question of excess valuation has been left out to be decided at the time of deciding issue no. 4 and the petitioner shall have sufficient chance to submit objections regarding valuation at that juncture also. Hence no interference is called for and the petition are hereby dismissed.