ORDER : 1. This civil revision is filed against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Narayanpur, in Civil Suit No.01/2021 (Bindu Dewangan Vs. Tankeshwar Dewangan and Ors.), whereby, an application filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) C.P.C. for rejection of plaint objecting that suit is undervalued, has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has filed a suit claiming title, permanent injunction and possession over four rooms of the house situated on the suit land which has been occupied by defendants No.1 to 5. The plaintiff also prayed to declare the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Narayanpur on 21.09.2017 in Revenue Case No.9/A-6/2016-17, as void. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no proper valuation has been made in respect of the suit property. He places reliance in the matter of Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Pratap Narain Verma and anr reported in AIR 2022 SC 2867 : AIR Online 2022 SC 861 to submit that the defendant has right to raise the objection in respect of valuation of the suit and if there materials or objectives standard for the valuation, and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and proceeds for arbitrary valuation, the Court, is entitled to interfere under Order VII, Rule 11 (b) of the CPC and thus the court will be in a position to determine the correct valuation with reference to the objectives standards or materials available before it. In view of the aforesaid, he prays to allow the revision or pass suitable direction to the concerned Court. 4. It appears that the plaintiff has valued the suit property in respect of possession in view of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 where subject matter is land. The said provision stipulates that in suits for possessions of lands, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject matter valuation has to be made. When the suit property is agricultural land, in such circumstances valuation has to be made according to the land revenue, otherwise the valuation of the suit has to be made strictly in accordance with subject matter. Further, Section 9 and 10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 gives power to ascertain proper market value of the suit property which reads thus:- “9. Further, Section 9 and 10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 gives power to ascertain proper market value of the suit property which reads thus:- “9. Power to ascertain net profits or market-value - if the Court sees reason to think that the annual net profits or the market-value of any such land, house or garden as is mentioned in section 7, paragraphs (v) and (vi), have or has been wrongly estimated, the Court may, for the purpose of computing the fee payable in any suit therein mentioned, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary, and to report thereon to the Court. 10. Procedure where net profit or market-value wrongly estimated - (i) If in the result of any such investigation the Court finds that the net profits or market-value have or has been wrongly estimated, the Court, if the estimation has been excessive, may in its discretion refund the excess paid as such fee : but, if the estimation has been insufficient, the Court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the said market-value or net profits been rightly estimated. (ii) In such case the suit shall be stayed until the additional fee is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed.” 5. Moreover, Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates that 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, the plaint shall be rejected. 6. For the forgoing, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned trial Court to obtain the map of the concerned suit property showing the relevant portion i.e. four rooms of the house which alleged to have been occupied unauthorizedly and for which the possession has been sought for. Thereafter, the trial Court shall direct the plaintiff to put the correct valuation for relief. However, if the trial Court is not satisfied with such valuation, then it may proceed as per Section 9 and 10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Ordered accordingly. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the revision stands disposed of.