ORDER : 1. The short question of law that falls for consideration of this court in the case at hands is as under: When the plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction of the court, and later the same is re-presented before the jurisdictional court, whether the subject matter of the suit has to be valued as on the date the plaint was originally presented to the court which returned it or on the date when it is re-presented before the jurisdictional court ? 2. The above question arises in the following fact matrix: (a) There was an injunctive suit in O.S.No.2278/1990; it was filed by the petitioner; subsequently, the plaint was amended inter alia for a declaration of title; the City Civil Court, Bengaluru vide order dated 2.1.2008 held that the market value of the property in the year 2008 when the amendment of plaint was sanctioned, was Rs.2,66,085/-and therefore, had directed payment of deficit court fee; that was paid. (b) Subsequently, the Court returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and that, petitioner re presented the plaint in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn), Doddaballapura; the plaint was again returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, value of the suit property being more than Rs.5,00,000/-and therefore, it was represented in the jurisdictional Court of Principal Civil Judge, Doddaballapura. (c) On the re-presentation of the plaint, the jurisdictional court at the instance of the respondent-defendants, having found the subject matter of the suit under-valued, directed the petitioner to pay the adequate court fee by valuing the suit property properly taking its market value as on the date the plaint was re-presented before it; the said order dated 24.8.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G happens to be the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. After service of notice, the respondent-defendants having entered appearance through their counsel, vehemently resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured; learned advocate Smt.K.M.Archana appearing for Respondent No.3 seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition by placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in EXL CAREERS & ANOTHER vs. FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED (2020) 12 SCC 667 . 4. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the question of law framed for consideration is not much res integra, as rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the third respondent; in EXL CAREERS Case supra, after examining the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 r/w Rule 10A of CPC, 1908, what the Apex Court observed can be summarized as under: If the court where the suit is instituted lacks jurisdiction, the plaint shall be returned in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code; the plaintiff can present it before the court having competence & jurisdiction; plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the suit bonafide before the court that lacked jurisdiction, in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; he can also seek adjustment of the court fee paid on the plaint in the previous court(s); after the presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint for all purposes and that the trial is to be conducted de novo. This summary provides a sufficient legal matrix to answer the framed question, to the effect that the plaintiff has to value the subject matter of the suit afresh as on the 5. The word “suit” is not defined by CPC, is true; however, section 26 states that a suit can be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in any such other manner as may be prescribed by law; Order IV Rule 1 provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the court or such officer appointed in that behalf; the word “suit” apart from some context, must be taken to mean a civil proceeding instituted by means of a plaint. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of it’s commencement and that the right to relief should be decided with reference to the date on which the dominant litis enters the portals of the court of competent jurisdiction; in the case at hands, the petitioner entered the court of competent jurisdiction only when he re-presented the plaint before the court below, as rightly contended by learned advocate for respondent no.3. 6. 6. In the eyes of law, for the purpose of valuation & payment of court fee, normally a suit is said to have been instituted only when the plaint is presented before a competent court; if that be so, the subject matter of the suit has to be valued taking the date of re-presentation of the plaint before the competent court and not the date(s) when it was wrongly presented before the court(s) that lacked jurisdiction. Section 3(ii) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958, defines “court” to mean any civil, revenue or criminal court having jurisdiction under any special or local law to decide questions affecting the rights of parties; thus, a litigant in order to have redressal of his grievance has to approach the court having competence & jurisdiction; the petitioner was at fault in presenting the plaint earlier before the courts that lacked jurisdiction. His contention that the fee paid on the plaint at the earliest point of time should be treated as adequate, if countenanced amounts to permitting him to take the advantage of his fault; that cannot be done. 7. Thus, pursuit of justice, ideally speaking, should cost nothing to the pursuer; however, this ideal appears to take many more decades to translate into reality; the pragmatics of the life & litigation cost the State and thus, the need for levying of court fee on the litigants, is legislatively justified; the dicta that “justice is free”, cannot be taken to mean that a litigant needs to pay no court fee at all; if he emerges victorious in the legal battle, In the above circumstances, the impugned order being consistent with the principles emerging from the discussion supra, cannot be faltered and therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy. All contentions of the parties having been kept open, learned Judge of the court below is requested to try & dispose off the suit before the end of December 2021.