ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.2/2014 pending trial before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kalaburagi (henceforth referred as 'Trial Court') challenging an order dated 22.10.2018, by which, the Trial Court decided the preliminary issue raised by it, in so far as the valuation of the suit properties for the purpose of the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiffs. 2. A suit for declaration of title and an additional relief of declaration that the adoption deed dated 18.01.1991 was null and void and for a consequent decree for partition and separate possession and for perpetual injunction was sought in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The relief of declaration of title to the suit properties was valued at a sum of Rs.6,675/-, while the relief of declaration that the adoption deed was null and void was valued and Court fee of Rs.25/-was paid and in so far as the relief of partition and separate possession is concerned, the suit was valued under Section 35 (2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and a sum of Rs.200/-was paid. None the less, the defendant No.1 raised an objection that the suit was not properly valued. In that regard, the Trial Court framed an issue which is as follows :- "Whether the plaintiffs prove that the valuation made by the plaintiffs on the relief of declaration for the purpose of payment of Court fee is proper and sufficient"? 3. The said issue was treated as a preliminary issue. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs deleted the relief of declaration which was allowed by the Trial Court in terms of an order dated 27.08.2018. Consequently the suit was only for the relief of partition, perpetual injunction and for a declaration that the adoption deed dated 18.01.1991 was null and void. The Trial Court after considering the preliminary issue held that in view of the deletion of the relief of declaration, the question whether the plaintiffs had undervalued the suit for the relief of declaration, did not arise. The Trial Court therefore held that the suit was properly valued and thus closed the preliminary issue and directed the office to adjust the deficit Court fee from the excess Court fee paid by the plaintiffs. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant No.1 has filed the present writ petition. 5. The Trial Court therefore held that the suit was properly valued and thus closed the preliminary issue and directed the office to adjust the deficit Court fee from the excess Court fee paid by the plaintiffs. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant No.1 has filed the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted that the relief of declaration could not have been deleted, in view of the contention of the defendant No.1 that the suit properties were Stridhan properties of his predecessor in title and therefore, the Trial Court could not have closed the preliminary issue framed regarding the Court fees payable on the relief of declaration. 6. When an action is brought before a Civil Court, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis. He is entitled to value the suit based on the assertions made in the plaint. If he has deleted a relief that he had sought for, the defendant No.1 cannot assert that the plaintiffs should continue to claim the relief. 7. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule properties. Incidentally, the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties. They have also sought for a declaration that the adoption deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1, was null and void and not operable against the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs have given up the relief of declaration, the basis for valuation of the suit itself stood altered and the suit had to be valued only for the relief of the partition, injunction and declaration that the adoption deed is null and void. The preliminary issue framed by the Trial Court had no legs to stand and therefore had to be closed. This is preciously what the Trial Court has done and therefore it did not commit any error in closing the preliminary issue. In that view of the matter, the writ petition lacks merit and same is dismissed. Since, the suit is filed in the year 2014 and the trial has not yet begun, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit efficaciously and expeditiously within a period of 06 months from the date of the parties concluding their evidence.