JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Suit No. 893 of 2008 (Mohan Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and others) and also the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Sitapur, in Civil Revision No. 27 of 2015 [Pradeep Sahni v. Mohan Chandra and others). 2. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the defendant and running Cloth business in a wooden shop measuring 8 x 8 feet situated at Nazul Plot No. 814 PP at Mohalla Thomsonganj, Mini Paraw, Sitapur, Pargana Khairabad, District Sitapur. In the year 1991, the Dy. Commissioner, Sitapur, granted a patta/lease for a period of 30 years in favour of the brother of the petitioner-Jivesh Sahni in respect of the land in question on which the wooden shop is situated through a registered lease deed dated 29.7.1991. Later on, under a scheme floated by the State Government for converting such lease on Nazul plots into free hold, in the year 1996 a fresh hold deed was executed through Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur, and the brother of the petitioner became the owner of the land in question by the registered free hold deed dated 19.1.1996. The contesting-respondents, i.e. opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 filed a Regular Suit No. 893 of 2008 praying for a declaration that the lease deed executed on 7.3.1991 and the free hold lease deed dated 18.1.1996 be declared as void giving no right to the defendant therein and also for a direction to the defendants to remove the hold in Shop/Khokha from the disputed land in question. The petitioner filed written statement in which a specific plea was taken that there was under valuation of the Suit and less Court Fee paid, issues were framed and Issue No. 4 as well as Issue No. 6 has been decided by the learned Trial Court by the order dated 23.6.2015. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Decision/Adjudication of Issue No. 4 in the order dated 23.2.2015. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Decision/Adjudication of Issue No. 4 in the order dated 23.2.2015. He has pointed out on the basis of section 12 (ii) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 that when the petitioner approached the learned Additional District Judge in Revision, the Revisional Court also did not consider the matter appropriately and rejected the Revision. It has been pointed out that after the disputed land was converted into free hold, the brother of the petitioner sold off the land to the petitioner and in the registered sale-deed, it has come out that the value of the land alongwith shop situated thereon, as per the declared Circle rates of the Government was ` 3,42,000/-. The learned Trial Court without looking into the allegations of severe under valuation of the property in question had only considered the fact that the plaintiffs wanted the declaration and has valued the property only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. He has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailendra Bhardwaj and others v. Chandra Pal and another 2013 (118) RD 310 , to say that the value of the entire property should be considered as on date of filing of the Suit and this fact has been ignored by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the orders impugned, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court took into account the professed value of the land as given out in the plaint and has ignored the submission made by the learned Counsel for the defendant that the property in question is of much higher value and the Suit be valued on an ad-valorem basis and Court Fee to be paid under section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as is required under the U.P. Amendment to the Court Fee Act. 5. This Court has also perused the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Shailendra Bhardwaj (supra) and finds that the appellants' case before the Supreme Court was that the Trial Court and the High Court had wrongly taken into account the current value of the property as the Court Fee need to be paid only on the plaints averments. The Supreme Court after holding the original section-7 of the Court Fee Act and the amendments brought about by the U.P. Amendment Act by XIX of 1938 therein in section 7 and the Schedule-II attached therein and also taking into account the U.P. Amendment in the Suites Valuation Act, 1887 found that the facts of the case was covered under Paragraph 7 (iv-A) and the Suit had to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in an area affected by or title to which is affected by the relief sought. 6. This Court finds also on the basis of arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sale-deed entered into between the petitioner and his brother of the property in question was not brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court during the course of the arguments addressed on Issue No. 4 before it. 7. The order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Suit No. 893 of 2008 (Mohan Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and others) and also the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Sitapur, in Civil Revision No. 27 of 2015 (Pradeep Sahni v. Mohan Chandra and others) are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Civil Judge, Sitapur, for consideration afresh on Issue No. 4. The petitioner shall be allowed to produce the documentary evidence to show that the property in question is of much greater value than was mentioned in the plaint for the purpose of Court Fee. 8. The petition stands allowed to this extent.