JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Notice upon the opposite parties have been effected. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of O.P. Nos. 9 to 13. However, nobody has appeared on behalf of the rest of the opposite parties and to provide one more opportunity to the rest of the opposite parties the matter was adjourned on 10.01.2025 and today again on repeated calls nobody appeared on behalf of the rest of the opposite parties accordingly, this matter is being heard in absence of rest of the opposite parties. 2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 13. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisioin)-V, Deoghar in M.C.A. No. 268 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 162 of 2017 whereby the learned Civil Judge has been pleased to allow the petition filed by the defendant directing the plaintiffs to deposit ad valorem stamp as per the valuation of the suit property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 162 of 2017 for preliminary decree declaring the share and interest of the plaintiffs to the extent of 4/5 th share in the suit property and for delivery of possession and for appointment of survey knowing commissioner. He further submits that upon notice the defendants/opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement and the matter was sent to mediation before the mediator however, it was not materialized. He then submits that the defendant no. 10 i.e. father of the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C which was registered as M.C.A. No. 268 of 2022 praying therein to direct the plaintiffs to file ad valorem court fee stamp on the exact valuation of the suit property. He further submits that the said petition was allowed by the learned court and direction has been issued to correct the value of the property and to pay ad valorem court fee as per the current valuation of the suit property. He submits that the suit is meant for partition and there is fixed court fee prescribed @ Rs. He further submits that the said petition was allowed by the learned court and direction has been issued to correct the value of the property and to pay ad valorem court fee as per the current valuation of the suit property. He submits that the suit is meant for partition and there is fixed court fee prescribed @ Rs. 250/- at the time of institution and further it has been enhanced @ 1,000/-. He submits that the learned court without appreciating the facts, has passed the order and no reason has been assigned to come to that conclusion. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 13 opposes the prayer and submits that value of the suit property was to the tune of Rs. 3,34,15,800/- however the property was valued to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- only. He submits that the suit property was not properly disclosed in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that once a petition is filed for paying ad valorem court fee the Court is competent to examine the valuation and revise it. He relied in the case of “Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj and Another” reported in 1987 (0) Supreme (SC) 626 . On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the order. He submits that under the guise of partition suit the intent of prayer is declaratory and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the said order. 6. The plaint is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Relief has been sought for preliminary decree declaring the share and interest of the plaintiffs to the extent of 4/5 th share in the suit property and for delivery of possession over the separately allotted share to the plaintiffs and for appointment of survey knowing commissioner. Thus, prima facie it transpires that the suit was instituted for partition. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. Thus, prima facie it transpires that the suit was instituted for partition. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 13 in the case of Smt. Tara Devi (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 wherein it has been held that the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation for the purposes of valuation and jurisdiction and it is only in cases wherein the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. 7. From the impugned order it does not transpire how the learned court came to that conclusion that wherein it was disclosed that suit property was purchased by way of registered sale deed to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Reference may be made to the case of “Agra Diacesan Trust Association Vs. Anil David and others ” reported in AIR 2020 (SC)1372 wherein para 16, 17 and 18 it has been held as under:- “16. The plaintiff/petitioners’ contention was and continues to be that the value determinable is in terms of clause (v) of Section 7, by reason of Section 7 (iv-A). Section 7 (v) (i) contains two clauses- (a) and (b): both are in respect of revenue paying lands. The petitioner valued its suits on the basis of revenue which according to it, was payable. While so stating, the value (for purposes of court fee) was determined to be Rs. 3000/- in each of the suits. 17. A plain reading of the impugned judgment reveals that what wFeighed heavily with the High Court was the fact that the plaintiff valued the suits differently for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and secondly that: “no other market value has been proved by the petitioners/plaintiff that the settled revenue of the land is Rs. 17. A plain reading of the impugned judgment reveals that what wFeighed heavily with the High Court was the fact that the plaintiff valued the suits differently for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and secondly that: “no other market value has been proved by the petitioners/plaintiff that the settled revenue of the land is Rs. 3,000/- and in the absence of any evidence in this regard, the trial court has rightly considered the market value of the property in dispute in accordance with the market value fixed by the Collector in order to charge the stamp duty, which is the correct market value.” In the opinion of this court, there was no compulsion for the plaintiff to, at the stage of filing the suit, prove or establish the claim that the suit lands were revenue paying and the details of such revenue paid. Once it is conceded that the value of the land [per explanation to Section 7 (iv-A)] is to be determined according to either sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of the Act, this meant that the concept of “market value” – a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A). This aspect was lost sight of by the High Court, in the facts of this case. The reasoning and conclusions of the High Court, are therefore, not sustainable. 18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and order, and that of the trial court, cannot stand. Consequently, the question of what is the market value, based on the revenue payable, would be an issue to be tried in the suit. Resultantly, the appeals succeed and are allowed without any order on costs.” 8. Coming to the facts of the present case it transpires that the petitioners valued its suit on the basis of sale deed and on that basis of that fixed court fee was paid as the suit was said to be partition suit and the contention has been made that market value of the suit property can be added, which can be an issue to be tried in the suit. 9. 9. In view of above discussions and further considering that there is no determination by the impugned order on the point of ad valorem court fees, that order cannot sustain. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 is set aside and consequently, what is the market value on the revenue payable would be an issue to be tried in the suit. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.