JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff, the, respondent in the instant petition, instituted a suit, seeking hence there through rendition of a declaratory decree, for, setting aside hence letter bearing No. Baddi Infra/Treatment Charges/2018- 1203-1205, of, 23.7.2018, on anvil, qua it breaching, the, terms, and conditions, of, the agreement, entered, on 5.12.2016, hence, interse the contesting litigants, besides also strived for rendition, of, a decree, of, mandatory injunction, against, defendants No. 1 and 2, for, the latter being enjoined, to, restore the membership, of, the plaintiff company, with, defendants No. 1 and 2, (a) hence, for there through, the, plaintiff company being permitted, to, use the CETP facility rather for, ensuring disposal, of, the, industrial waste/effluents, emanating from, its manufacturory. Obviously, also, a, decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the afore objections, and also, qua therewith, was, hence espoused, in, civil suit bearing No. 1410, of, 2018. However, the lis nowat engaging, the, contesting litigants, appertains, to, lack, of, pecuniary jurisdiction, vesting, in the learned trial Judge, to, entertain, try, and, make an adjudication, upon, the afore civil suit. Consequently, for, resting, the, afore lis, it is, initially incumbent, to, extract, the, apt para, qua therewith, para whereof, stands extracted hereafter: "15. That the value to the mandatory injunction is___ and a Court fees of Rs. 150/-is being affixed on the plaint and for the relief of permanent perpetual injunction the value of the suit is Rs. 150/-and a Court fee of Rs. 150/-is affixed on the plaint and for relief declaration is Rs. 150/-and a Court fees of Rs. 150/- is affixed on the plant." A perusal thereof, unveils, qua vis-a-vis, each, of, the afore relief’s, rather the, valuation, of, the suit, for, the purposes of jurisdiction, and, concomitantly, also vis-a-vis, court fees, hence becoming assessed, in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each, and, also upon, each, of, the afore quantified sums, of, jurisdictional valuations, rather, besides, vis-a-vis, each, of, the afore relief’s, the, proportionate apposite therewith, hence Court fees, rather becoming standing affixed, hence, on the plaint. However, the defendants, had, instituted written statements thereto, and, claimed, that, the afore relief’s rather becoming un-grantable, to the plaintiff, given, the plaintiff making repeated reminders made upon it, to, deposit, a, sum of Rs. However, the defendants, had, instituted written statements thereto, and, claimed, that, the afore relief’s rather becoming un-grantable, to the plaintiff, given, the plaintiff making repeated reminders made upon it, to, deposit, a, sum of Rs. 64, 33,825/-.In the written statement, instituted by the defendant, vis-a-vis, the plaint, it was also contended, that the suit becoming not properly valued, both for the purpose, of, jurisdiction, and, also for the purpose, of, court fees'. 2. Be that as it may, during, the pendency, of, the afore civil suit, before the learned trial Judge concerned, the, plaintiff-Company, instituted therebefore, an, application, cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, (i) wherethrough, during, the pendency, of, the afore civil suit, before the learned trial Judge concerned, hence pronouncement, of, an ad-interim injunction, was espoused, rather for directing, the, defendants/petitioners herein, to, maintain status quo ante, as existed before the issuance, of, the challenged letter bearing No. Baddi Infra/Treatment Charges/2018-1203-1205, of, 23.7.2018, (ii) and, also, a relief, was espoused therein, for, directions, being meted upon the defendants, to, connect the pipelines, which had hitherto become blocked, and, also dis-connected, rather on 20.6.2018. Upon the afore application, an affirmative order was made, and, thereagainst, a challenge, is cast, before, the learned appellate authority/Court. 3. The learned counsels, for, the plaintiffs, contends that, the afore reared remedy, and as stands availed, by the defendants, rather constituting, the, befitting apt, and, legally recoursable remedy, (i) and hence the, casting, of, the instant petition, herebefore, is, rather a remedy, in, alternative thereto, besides, (ii) would becomes the aptly recoursed, remedy, only, upon, an adjudication becoming meted, upon, the afore sub-judice challenge constituted, against, the impugned orders hereat, rather, by the learned District Judge concerned, (iii) and, thereafter both contend, that, the instant petition hence warranting dismissal, it being pre-mature. 4. In making the afore submission, before this Court, the learned counsels, for, the plaintiffs make dependences, upon, a judgment rendered, by, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai, and others versus Tuticorin Educational Society and others,2019 SCCOnlineSC 1292, (i) wherein, in a scenario bearing analoguity, and, similarity, vis-a-vis, the scenario, hence, prevailing hereat, rather, the, similar here made espousal, stood countenanced, by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the afore made submissions before this Court, by the learned counsels, for, the plaintiff, is, for the reasons assigned hereinafter, rather, rejected: (i) The learned trial Court concerned, proceeding, to, assume, hence jurisdiction, upon, the afore civil suit, despite it lacking, the, pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, to, entertain or pronounce therein, any, legally befitting adjudication; (ii) The afore-stated objections, vis-a-vis, lack of pecuniary competence, vesting in the learned trial Judge, to, hence assume valid jurisdiction, upon, the apposite civil suit, though, becoming reared, in, the written statement instituted, vis-a-vis, the plaint, by the defendants, hence, was enjoined, to be adjudicated, upon, (a) whereas, despite tenacity, of, the afore objections, the learned trial Judge proceeding, to, assume invalid jurisdiction, upon, civil suit bearing No. 1410 of 2018, (b) and, concomitantly thereupon, the, verdict rendered, upon, CMA No. 165/6 of 2018, also becoming stained with, the, vice of gross lack, of, jurisdictional competence, hence vesting in the learned trial Court, rather, to, make any valid order, thereons. 5. Significantly, the, apposite effects, of, the afore conclusion, also becomes supported, by, the further reasons, as assigned hereinafter, wherefrom, a, firm inference, becomes, engendered, qua, the jurisdictional competence vested, in this Court, (i) and ensuing from, the mandate, cast, under Article 227, of the Constitution, of, India, hence, for curing, the, afore jurisdictional errors, hence, becoming committed, by, the learned trial Judge, in his making, an, invalid order, upon CMA No. 165/6 of 2018, rather empowering, this Court, to, make apt rectifications, (ii) and, also, hence the extant petition, rather becoming, the, befitting recoursable remedy, dehors, the remedy, of, a sub-judice appeal, becoming already recoursed or recoursable, before the appellate Court, and, being directed against the impugned order, (iii) and, whereupons, hence the afore rendered verdict, visibly becoming stained with a vice, of, jurisdictional incompetence, (iv) thereupon this Court, through, the empowerment, bestowed upon, it through Article 227, of, the Constitution of India, rather becoming concomitantly vested with apt jurisdiction, to, correct, the, espoused illegalities, rather occurring, in the challenged order. The afore view, does, garner immense mobilization, from, the verdicts rendered, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled, as, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd Vs.Grapco Industries Ltd. And others, (1999) 4 SCC 710 , and, also from a verdict rendered, in, case titled as Seth Chand Ratan Vs. Pandit Durga Prasad and others, (2003) 5 SCC 399 . Pandit Durga Prasad and others, (2003) 5 SCC 399 . 6. Be that as it may, the further legally vitalized reason, for, making the afore conclusion, also, stands generated, from the learned trial Judge, abysmally overlooking, the, afore extracted paragraph, existing in the plaint, and, also his overlooking, the, corresponding thereto, hence apt objections, reared, by the defendants, rather in their written statements, (i) wherein, the latter made a vehement contest, vis-a-vis, the, appropriateness, of, all valuations, made therein, and, also made a further vociferous contest, qua vis-a-vis, each relief also, appropriate courts fee, becoming affixed, on, the plaint. The objections reared by the defendants, vis-a-vis, the afore facet, is/are, both, apt and tenable, as, a perusal, of, the apt provisions borne in clause (c) and (d), of, the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: (iv) in suits- (a) For movable property of no market value; for movable property where the subject matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title; (b) To enforce a right to share in joint family property; to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property; (c)For a declaratory decree and consequential relief; to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed; (d) For an injunction; to obtain an injunction; (e) For easements; for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land; (f) For accounts; for accounts, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal; In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought; Provided that the minimum court-fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees; Provided further that in suit coming under sub-clause (c), in case where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (v) of this Section. And, also upon theirs becoming read, with, the defendants contending, vis-a-vis, the espoused decrees, becoming unrenderable, (i) given, the plaintiffs withholding, a, sum of Rs. And, also upon theirs becoming read, with, the defendants contending, vis-a-vis, the espoused decrees, becoming unrenderable, (i) given, the plaintiffs withholding, a, sum of Rs. 64, 33,825/- (ii) thereupon hence an inference, becoming engendered, qua the essence, and, substratum, of, the relief’s, canvassed in the suit, as well as, in, the application, squarely, pointedly and directly, appertaining, to, rather through the espoused relief’s, the, plaintiff preempting, the, defendants, from, ensuring the realization, of, the contested sums, of, money, from, the defendants. The contest interse the litigants, vis-a-vis, the legitimacy or illegitimacy, of, respectively contested claims, vis-a-vis, the, afore sums, of, money, are visibly, beyond, the, pecuniary limits, of, jurisdiction, of, the learned trial Judge, (iii) given, upon, the afore contested sums, of, money, upon, being proven, through adduction of cogent evidence, upon, the relevant issues, rather, would hence disable the learned trial Judge, to, pronounce, a, valid decree, thereon (iv) more so, also upon, cogent proof emanating, vis-a-vis, the legitimacy, of, the afore monetary claims, as, reared by the defendants, may likewise constrain, the, learned trial Judge, to, make a conditional decree, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, hence especially, upon, the plaintiffs, making the afore deposit, before, the defendants-company, the espoused decree, becoming granted, qua therewith (v) emphatically also, upon cogent evidence, becoming adduced, upon, the relevant formulated issues, rather by the plaintiffs thereupon also, the plaintiffs, would preempt, the, defendants, from, making, the, realization of the afore comprised sums, of, money. (vi) In sequel, and, obviously the learned trial Judge, would hence, upon, pronouncing, a, decree qua therewith, rather would render, an invalid monetary decree, and, also rather, there through, hence the afore contested sums, of, money, interse, the contesting litigants, may ultimately, on termination, of, the lis, through, a verdict being made thereon, would, hence, graphically, and, candidly, rather hold overtones, of, concomitant, therewith, hence pecuniary enrichments, becoming, untenably bestowed, upon, the plaintiff-Company, or upon, the, defendants. In aftermath, the afore extracted hence made false, averment, in, the apposite suit, and, appertaining to, the requisite jurisdictional valuations, and, also appertaining, to, the affixation of court fees, upon, the plaint, is, manifestly suggestive, of, the plaintiff, deliberately, and, intentionally, rather making an incorrect valuation, of, the suit, both, for the purpose, of, court fees, and, also for jurisdiction, (iv) whereas, the apt parameters, for, the afore valuation, becoming validly made, is, squarely dependant, upon, the legitimacy, of, withholdings/or otherwise, rather by the contesting litigants, hence, the afore contested sums, of, money. In sequel, all the afores, make, the apt civil suit, becoming construable, to, be a money suit, dehors, all deployed therein semantic artifices. 7. XXX XXX XXX 8. The effect of the above discussion, is, that the exercising, of, jurisdiction, upon, the civil suit, hence, by the learned trial Judge, and, also, his pronouncing an order upon CMA No. 165/6 of 2018 becoming non-est, and, obviously the impugned orders, made, upon the apposite application, is, quashed and set-aside, (i) given it becoming rendered, despite, gross lack, of, hence pecuniary jurisdiction, rather vesting in the learned trial Judge, for, his validly entertaining, and, making a decision, either, upon, the civil suit or upon, the, apposite application. Obviously, it would be appropriate, to, direct the learned trial Judge, to, return the plaint, to, the plaintiff, for its, thereafter rather presenting the same, hence before the Court holding, the, apposite pecuniary jurisdiction, to, try and, make a valid adjudication thereon,(i) besides the returnee Court shall proceed with the lis, only upon the plaintiff, meteing either in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its presenting, the, apposite returned plaint, before the returnee Court, rather compliance, vis-a-vis, the afore observations, or, its within the time, granted, hence, for the afore requisite purposes, rather by the returnee Court, hence all making compliances therewith. The afores emanate, from, the mandate borne in Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: "Return of plaint-(1) [Subject to the provisions of rule 10-A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. contrarily, the mandate, engrafted in clause (b) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, mandate whereof, is, extracted hereinafter: 11. contrarily, the mandate, engrafted in clause (b) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, mandate whereof, is, extracted hereinafter: 11. Rejection of plaint- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases;- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule; (i) is, un-ameneable, for, recoursing. Significantly, it, becoming activated, only, upon subsequent, to, the learned trial Judge, ascertaining vis-a-vis the suit becoming under-valued, for, the purposes, of, jurisdiction, and, also for the purposes, of, court fees, (ii) and, whereafter, within the assigned times granted, to, the errant litigant, to, make, hence all apposite corrected valuations, or affixations, (iii) he/it yet falls, to, within the time granted, make, the, directed corrections, in valuation or fails to affix, apposite Court fee, upon the plaint. Contrarily, hereat, when visibly the afore activating enshrinements, embodied, in the afore clause (b), of, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, are hereat wanting, in, thereof apt satiation, and, nor when the afore provisions, can become recoursed either before this Court, or before the learned trial Judge concerned, (i) thereupon the mandate, of, Order 7 Rule 11 (b) CPC, is, un-available, for, recourse, vis-a-vis, the defendants. However, when apparently, the, extant suit, falls outside, the pecuniary limits, of, the jurisdiction, of, the learned trial Judge, and, hence thereupon the mandate, of, order 7 Rule 10 CPC, is, recoursable, and, with its applicable hereat, hence enshrinings, rather contemplating, vis-a-vis, after the plaint, in, consequence, vis-a-vis, the court, whereat, it stood initially instituted, hence, ascertaining or discovering, vis-a-vis, it becoming inaptly constituted therebefore, (v) thereupon it, becoming empowered, to, after making the apposite statutory endorsements, hence on the plaint, and, alongwith its/his making, the, apt reasons thereon, hence direct, the, returning, of, the plaint, vis-a-vis, the litigant concerned, for its presentation before the returnee Court. Significantly, and, obviously, the afore orders, also cannot be made by this Court, contrarily, the afore provision, borne in Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, is, recoursable only, before the learned trial Judge, hence, the parties, are, directed to appear before the learned trial Judge, on 25.11.2019, and the latter is directed to, expeditiously, in accordance with law, and, in compliance, vis-a-vis, the afore made observation, hence, make an order, rather within the ambit, of, order 7 Rule 10 CPC. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed, of. Also, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.