ORDER 1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC has been filed against the order dated 18/8/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Rajgarh Camp Churu, District Churu, whereby, the trial court has ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the competent court. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction, permanent injunction and consequential relief of possession inter alia claiming that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and formal defendants no. 8 to 17 is situated at Tara Nagar; chain of title since the issue of Patta in the year 1879 was indicated. It was contended that the State after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 recorded the land as un-cultivable ’Banjar’ and ’Gochar’, which was unathorized. On the said land, part of Delhi-Bikaner road was constructed and part of it was allotted to Government Sanskrit School and for construction of houses for nomads and Goswami Moksh. The boundaries of the remaining land were indicated. It was then alleged that the State by its order dated 7/6/2002 allotted 3 Bigha 4 Biswa land to the defendant no.6, which was mutated in its name on 18/6/2002. Similarly, on 30/12/2005 68 Bigha land was allotted to defendant no. 3, which was mutated on 13/2/2006. It was claimed that the said allotments to Sanskrit School etc. are null and void qua the plaintiff and the formal defendants for which the plaintiff and the said defendants have right to seek declaration, which is the cause of action. Said averments were followed by grounds questioning the validity of the transfers and the steps taken by the plaintiff from time to time including filing of the suit before the Civil Judge, Tara Nagar. 3. With regard to the valuation of the suit, in para 17 it was indicated that as the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs. 27,20,000/- for development of the Sainik Basti on the land, the same is determined as valuation of the suit and is filed with court fee of Rs.1,37,325/- and for permanent injunction the suit was valued at Rs.400/- and court fee of Rs.30/- was paid on the same. 4. The plaintiff sought the following reliefs in the plaint: 5. The suit originally filed was later on amended. 6. Written statement was filed by defendant nos. 4. The plaintiff sought the following reliefs in the plaint: 5. The suit originally filed was later on amended. 6. Written statement was filed by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 7 contesting the averments made in the plaint. In relation to para 17 of the plaint pertaining to valuation of the suit and basis thereof, it was submitted that the valuation of the plaint was too low and as per the DLC rates, the land in question is valued at Rs.718,33,71,600/-, whereas, the suit has been valued at Rs.27,20,000/-, which is liable to be rejected. Similar written statement was filed by defendant nos. 4 and 5. 7. After filing of the written statements, the trial court on 19/7/2018 observed that from the perusal of the record it is revealed that the plaintiff has filed the suit against Municipality, Tara Nagar and Sanskrit School for cancellation of allotment of Gochar land and, therefore, it is necessary to decide as a preliminary issue whether the court has the pecuniary jurisdiction or not and, therefore, there is necessity to frame a preliminary issue pertaining to jurisdiction and, therefore, preliminary issue was framed and the matter was kept for hearing on the preliminary issue. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its impugned order dated 18/8/2018 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has sought cancellation of the allotment letters issued to Municipality and Sanskrit School, which allotment letters fall within the definition of instrument. The allotment made to the Sanskrit School is free of charge and allotment made to the Municipality is for the purpose of residential plots, no declaration has been sought pertaining to the ownership of the land and as only cancellation of the allotment letters has been sought, it cannot be said that this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the said suit as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is qua the suits above the valuation of Rs.5 lakh and relief for cancellation of mutation can be granted by the revenue courts and for the purpose of cancellation of allotment letters the jurisdiction is with the competent Civil Judge and consequently ordered for return of the plaint. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the trial court framing preliminary issue and ordering for return of the plaint are ex facie illegal and against the settled position of law. 10. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the trial court framing preliminary issue and ordering for return of the plaint are ex facie illegal and against the settled position of law. 10. Submissions have been made that the plaintiff had specifically made averments in para 17 of the plaint giving out the basis for valuation of the suit at Rs.27,2000/-, which was contested by the defendants, rather the plea raised was that the suit is under valued and, therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to suo moto frame the preliminary issue pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and, therefore, on that count the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 11. Submissions were also made that the order impugned has been passed in a wholly cursory manner inasmuch as even reference to the basis for valuation of the suit, though has been noticed while indicating facts, the said aspect has not been dealt with. 12. Further, the trial court has failed to even indicate as to under what provision the suit would be valued and what would be valuation of the plaint based on the averments made and relief claimed by the appellant and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel made vehement submissions that the plaint has been properly valued and, therefore, the decision on the preliminary issue deserves to be set aside and the suit be restored back. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 to 6 made vehement submissions that the order impugned does not call for any interference. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable before the said court and has consequently passed the order for return of the plaint which does not call for any interference. 15. Attempts were made even to contend, based on the written statement, that the valuation indicated in the plaint is not proper i.e. the property in question is of much higher value. 15. Attempts were made even to contend, based on the written statement, that the valuation indicated in the plaint is not proper i.e. the property in question is of much higher value. Learned counsel also emphasized that the trial court had passed the order for framing of the preliminary issue vide its order dated 19/7/2018, which order was not questioned by the appellant either when the said order was passed nor in the present appeal and, therefore, the said order having become final, now it is not open for the appellant to question the validity of the order impugned and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. Section 6 and 15 CPC, which deal with the pecuniary jurisdiction and court in which suit to be instituted, inter alia read as under: "6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.- Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. 15. Court in which suits to be instituted.-Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it." 18. A perusal of the above provisions would reveal that Section 15 CPC mandates that every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it. The said provision is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction as though it lays down that the suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the higher court. The object of the section is that the courts of higher grade shall not be over crowded with suits, which could be tried by the court of lower grades even if both the courts would have concurrent jurisdiction to try the suit. The above position would be relevant in case the valuation of the suit is lower, however, the same is filed in a court of higher grade. 19. Section 6 CPC which deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction bars the jurisdiction of courts qua suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. 19. Section 6 CPC which deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction bars the jurisdiction of courts qua suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. The said provision creates a bar qua the court of lower grade in relation to the amount or value of the subject matter to entertain suit exceeding its pecuniary limits and in the said provision, apparently no bar has been created for a court having higher pecuniary limits to hear matters of lower amount or value of the subject matter. 20. Further Section 21(2) CPC creates a bar regarding allowing of objection as to competence of the court with reference to the pecuniary limits at the appellate or revisional stage unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement and unless there has been a failure of justice. The objection under Section 21(2) CPC also essentially in relation to Section 6 CPC. 21. As noticed hereinbefore, in the present case the plaintiff valued the suit in para 17 giving out certain basis without indicating the relevant provision for putting such valuation to the suit. The defendants in their written statement or at any stage thereafter, did not raise an issue regarding the suit being overvalued and that the same should have been filed before the court of lower grade. However, the trial court by its order dated 19/7/2018, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to determine the issue pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and framed a preliminary issue and as noticed, after hearing the parties concluded that the suit was triable by a court of lower grade. 22. The trial court made repeated reference to the fact that the plaintiff was seeking cancellation of letters of allotment in favour of Municipality, Tara Nagar and Sainik Basti (residential colony) and without any further discussion regarding the basis for valuation and as to how the valuation put by the appellant in the plaint was incorrect and/or the relevant provision under which the suit should have been valued, in a passing reference concluded that the court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction and the competent civil court had the jurisdiction. 23. 23. The manner in which the court has dealt with the issue cannot be appreciated, as except for the fact that the plaintiff was seeking cancellation of letters of allotment, it cannot be deciphered as to how the court has reached to such a conclusion. 24. This Court also feels handicapped on account of the fact that neither in the written statement, objection of the nature regarding the suit being overvalued has been raised nor any application etc. has been filed in this regard, as there was no occasion in this regard because the trial court framed the issue suo moto. The nature of order, which has been passed, which essentially does not contain any cogent reason for reaching the conclusion as arrived at by the trial court, cannot be sustained. 25. It is true that the aspect of framing of preliminary issue has not been questioned by the appellant either at the stage of framing of the issue and/or in the present appeal and, therefore, whether the issue at all could be framed in the circumstances of the case, is not open to be examined by this Court. However, as observed, the order impugned dated 18/8/2018 for lack of cogent reasons rather any reason, cannot be sustained. 26. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 18/8/2018 is set aside. The suit is restored to its original number and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the preliminary issue after hearing the parties afresh. 27. As the issue is legal, it is expected of the trial court to decide the same expeditiously. 28. No order as to costs. 29. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.