JUDGMENT : This appeal arises out of the order dated 01.09.2006 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ballari, dismissing I.A.No.2 and rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.83/2004 with a prayer to set aside the order passed on 27.09.2005 and directing the trial Court to restore the suit to its original file. 2. The appellant is plaintiff before the trial Court and respondents are defendant Nos.1 to 6 before the trial court. 3. Plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.83/2004 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Ballari seeking relief of declaration and possession of suit schedule properties. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.1,20,000/for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and valued court fee at Rs.1,000/each on agricultural land and house property. It is further contended that the court has framed issues and Issue Nos.1 and 5 were framed regarding valuation of the Court fee and they were taken up as a preliminary issue. 4. The defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement. They denied the plaint averments. They have taken a contention that the lands are more than Rs.1,00,000/per acre and the house is worth of more than Rs.1,00,000/. 5. The trial Court framed an issue in this regard as issue No.5 out of eight issues framed. The said issue was erroneously decided and held that suit was not properly valued and court fee paid was not proper and directed to file fresh valuation slip and pay deficit court fee. 6. The plaintiff filed an applicationI.A.No.2 for review of the said order. The trial court not only dismissed the said applicationI.A.No.2 but also rejected the plaint. Hence, this appeal is preferred seeking to set aside the order. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.Chidanand argued that the said issue regarding court fee cannot be treated as a preliminary issue and as it is a mix question of law and facts which requires evidence. The learned counsel relied upon decision of Full Bench of this Court in Venkatesh R. Desai vs. Smt.Pushpa Hosmani and others, reported in 2019 (1) KCCR 1 (FB) and prayed to allow the appeal. 8. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee and file a fresh valuation slip and as it is not filed, the Court has rightly dismissed the suit by rejecting the plaint. 8. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee and file a fresh valuation slip and as it is not filed, the Court has rightly dismissed the suit by rejecting the plaint. The learned counsel supported the order of the trial Court. 9. I have perused the impugned order. It is evident that the trial Court has framed 8 issues and one of the issues i.e., issue No.5 is ‘whether the suit is properly valued and the Court fee paid is correct’. It appears, the said issue is framed in view of the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 & 6, particularly paragraph No.17 of the written statement, wherein it is stated that the value of the landed property is more than Rs.5,00,000/and house property is more than Rs.1,00,000/. So the Court fee paid is not correct. 10. According to the plaintiff he has valued the landed property at Rs.1,20,000/for the purpose of jurisdiction and valued the house property at Rs.20,000/and paid the Court fee under section 7(2) and also under section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. The suit is for declaration and possession. One property is agricultural land and other is the house property. 11. It is pertinent to note that after framing the issues on 7.12.2004, the trial Court treated issue No.5 as preliminary issue and accordingly after hearing the parties the Court passed the impugned order. 12. It is also evident that the plaintiff has not led any evidence nor the defendant has adduced any evidence. It is evident that the trial Court has passed an order based on irrelevant materials. It is stated in the order that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and possession, but the revenue records do not tally with the plaint schedule land particulars. If they are not tallying, then that matter can be considered by the Court at the time of trial and final disposal of the suit. It has no relevancy regarding Court fee. Further the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has placed his claim on Will dated 28.12.1983. But unfortunately he has not given the date of death of said Sangappa. Such observation has no bearing on the payment of Court fee. It has no relevancy regarding Court fee. Further the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has placed his claim on Will dated 28.12.1983. But unfortunately he has not given the date of death of said Sangappa. Such observation has no bearing on the payment of Court fee. Further the trial Court has stated that it is not pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has executed a gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. No relief is claimed regarding gift deed. If that relief is claimed, then the proper course for the trial Court is trial to give a finding on it. That is not the reason to reject the plaint. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff has not produced the RTCs of ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff has not specified the relevant provision of section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, under which he has assessed the suit. On the other hand the defendants produced the valuation of the suit properties issued by the Sub-Registrar showing that Rs.35,000/per acre. The Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and proper Court Fee is not paid. Therefore, passed the order stating that the plaintiff is directed to file fresh valuation slip and pay the deficit Court Fee by next week. It is evident from such order that it is passed not on any legally admissible evidence or after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence. On the other hand the trial Court itself has imagined that the said land is separately assessed and came to a conclusion that the proper Court fee is not paid. The Court has not determined actually what is the Court Fee payable and what is the deficit Court Fee payable by the plaintiff. The order is totally vague. It appears that the plaintiff sought certain time, and thereafter wards he filed application for review of the said order. The trial Court found that the review petition is not tenable and as it is filed belatedly and as there is ground, rejected the review petition. But it is pertinent to note that after dismissing the review petition the trial Court passed order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC reads as under: “11. But it is pertinent to note that after dismissing the review petition the trial Court passed order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC reads as under: “11. Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx; (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;” 13. On reading of the said provision it is evident that the Court has to find out that the claim is under valued. Then at least require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and fix a time to pay deficit Court fee and if he fails to do so, then it has to dismiss the plaint. Here in this case after passing of the order on issue no.5, the plaintiff has sought time. But the Court without fixing any date for payment or filing of such correct valuation slip dismissed application and rejected the plaint also which is not just and proper. 14. It is evident that the plaintiff has made his own valuation and also stated as to how he has arrived at the valuation and paid the Court fee under the provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It is the defendants to prove that the value of the property is more. Therefore such question required to be adjudicated at the time of trial which requires evidence. The Court after recording of the evidence, while giving finding to other issues can also give finding regarding the Court Fee issue. Here the pecuniary jurisdiction is not in issue, admittedly the suit is filed before the Senior Civil Judge Court which has got unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction after Rs.5,00,000/as per the provisions of Karnataka Civil Courts Act. Further in the Full Bench decision referred above, the Full Bench at paragraph No.32 and 35 has held as under: 32. In the context of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, on the principles aforesaid and for the purpose for which the provision is enacted, we are clearly of the view that the expression ‘shall’ as used in subsections (2) and (5) of Section 11 of the Act of 1958 is required to be construed as directory in nature and not mandatory. In other words, the determination of the questions envisaged by subsections (2) and (5) of Section 11 of the Act of 1958 may be undertaken by the Court before the evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim in its discretion; and such a discretion would obviously be conditioned by the requirements of Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC. Tersely put, in our view, if the Court finds that the question of valuation and/or Court fees as raised by the defendant relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, it may try such an issue first and before the evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim; and in other eventualities, the Court may examine such a question of valuation and/or Court fees, but not necessarily as a preliminary issue or before the evidence on other issues. 35. Accordingly, and in view of the above, we are clearly of the view that by virtue of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when an issue of valuation and/or Court fees is raised in a civil suit on the objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues; but could be tried as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction and the Trial Court is of the view that the suit or any part thereof could be disposed of on its determination. The reference stands answered accordingly. 15. Therefore in view of the principles stated in the Full Bench decision and also in view of the nature of the order passed by the Court, I am of the considered view that the said order is illegal, erroneous and not based on settled principles regarding determining such an issue which require evidence in view of the contention taken by both the parties in the suit. Therefore the said order needs to be set aside. The matter is to be remanded back to the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law on all issues by providing opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence even in respect of the issue on Court Fee also. Then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The matter is to be remanded back to the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law on all issues by providing opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence even in respect of the issue on Court Fee also. Then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In the result, the order of the rejection of the plaint is to be set aside. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Decree dated 1.9.2006 dismissing I.A.No.2 and rejecting the plaint passed in O.S.No.83/2004 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, is set aside and consequently the order dated 27.9.2005 passed on issue No.5 is also set aside. (iii) The trial Court is directed to restore the suit in O.S.No.83/2004 to its original file and proceed further in accordance with law. (iv) Since the suit is of the year 2004, both the parties shall assist the Court in disposal of the suit as expeditiously as possible without taking any adjournments. (v) The trial Court is also directed to give preference to this case keeping in mind the pendency of this case and other direction matters. (vi) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties shall bear their own costs. (vii) Office to send back the trial court records immediately. (viii) In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.