JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - The writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder order dated 21.07.2018 (Annexure-4) passed in Title Suit No.78 of 2015 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-I, Jamshedpur, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder petition filed by the petitioner dated 17.07.2017 for deciding the jurisdiction and valuation of the suit land for settlement of issue, the same has been rejected against which, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that a suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent being Title Suit No.78 of 2015 for declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the land and the sale deed no.4623 dated 18.11.1998 be declared to be illegal void ab initio and not binding with the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that on 15.02.2015 one Mukhdev Yadav demanded a sum of Rs.10,30,000/- paid by him to the plaintiff for selling the scheduled property as he disclosed that defendant/respondent have executed the said sale deed in favour of the father of the defendant, late Badri Narayan. A notice have been issued by the trial Court, petitioner/defendant has appeared, who has filed a petition on 17.07.2017 mentioning therein to decide the jurisdiction and valuation of the suit land. A rejoinder to that petition has been filed stating therein that the suit has been filed by stipulating the right value of the suit property for the purpose of Court Fee and as such there is no illegality in the matter. 3. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties have passed the order on 17.07.2017 which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial on the ground of the pecuniary jurisdiction and as such, the same needs to be decided by way of preliminary issue otherwise there will be wastage and misuse of the Courts proceeding but without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the impugned order has been passed. 5. 5. The question which is to be looked into by this Court that as to whether at this stage this question is to be adjudicated by framing a preliminary issue, such question is the subject matter before the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Ors. Vrs. Vimla Pannalal , (1988) 3 SCC 423 , wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court on a petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11(b) which pertains undervaluation of relief has passed an order by considering the judgment rendered in the case of Kishori Lal Marwari Vrs. Kumar Chandra Narain Deo , (1939) AIR Patna 572, wherein Hon''ble Patna High Court has been pleased to hold that the plaintiff must value his suit according to the amount of decree and must pay ad valorem court fee on such amount. Subsequent judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Nalini Nath Mallik Thakur Vrs. Radhashayam Marwari , (1940) AIR Calcutta 482, wherein it has been held that although a satisfactory valuation may not be possible but it is duty of the Court to estimate a correct and reasonable valuation of the relief claimed and it is for the court to decide on the merits of each particular case whether the provisions of Section 8-C should be invoked for the purpose of revising the plaintiff''s valuation. Section 8-C which provides that if the Court is of opinion that the subject matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such enquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. Further, it has been observed that if the relief claimed is impossible to value, the Court is, of course, not in a position to say that such relief has been wrongly valued and there is consequently no scope for the operation of Section 8-C, but in a suit where it is sought to set aside a decree, such valuation, although difficult, is not impossible. 6. After taking into consideration the judgment and considering the factual facts involved therein, it has been held that the plaintiffs cannot be whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the fact of the plaint. 6. After taking into consideration the judgment and considering the factual facts involved therein, it has been held that the plaintiffs cannot be whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the fact of the plaint. These materials or objective standards will also enable the court to determine the valuation for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the C.P.C. 7. In the light of these propositions, this Court has examined the factual aspect which pertains to institution of Title Suit No.78 of 2015 against the defendant/petitioner for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.11.1998 said to have been executed in favour of Badri Narayan has been obtained from plaintiff is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff, has valued the suit property at Rs.10,30,000/- while processing to sell in favour of the purchaser on 15.02.2015 by demanding a sum of Rs.10,30,000/- but valued the suit property at Rs.25,000/- only and no ad valorum court fee even paid thereupon and as such a petition under Order 7 Rule 11-b and Section 151 of the CPC has been filed. It is evident from the pleading made in the writ petition as also the plaint of the suit that merely on account of a proposal to sell out a property in favour of Mukhdeo Yadav from whom a sum of Rs.10,30,000/- for selling the scheduled property to him and on that basis the suit value as has been declared by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.25,000/- has been made a ground to invoke the jurisdiction as conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 b of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, after going across the record, has found at para 14 wherein the suit valued has been assessed to the tune of Rs.25,000/- a simple suit for declaration of court fee of Rs.25,000/- which is paid by her while in para 23 of the written statement the defendant/petitioner has denied the claim and stated that the suit is exorbitantly under valued. It is evident from the plaint by which the plaintiff has brought the suit for decree on 18.11.1998 bearing no.4623 said to have been executed in favour of Badri Narayan which has been obtained be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is simple suit for declaration and as such the court after coming to the conclusion on the basis of the aforesaid fact, has recorded the reason while rejecting the said petition that the subject matter of the suit value is a matter of the final decision of the suit and at this stage it cannot be decided and therefore, by observing in the impugned order as to whether the plaintiff has filed the ad valorum court fee or not is a matter of final judgment which will be decided at the time of final judgment. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view after going across the reasoning given in the impugned order that the suit value as has been declared by the plaintiff is appropriate or not, the same is subject matter of adjudication by leading evidence and therefore, the same cannot be a ground of either rejection of the plaint or return of the plaint rather the same is to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage as has been observed in the impugned order, therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition fails, hence is dismissed.