H. PANIGRAHI, J.

(1) THE defendant in T. S. 195/94 has challenged the legality, validity and the propriety of the order passed by the 7th Asstt. District Judge at Alipur rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for returning the plaint for proper presentation in the court having competent jurisdiction.

(2) THE plaintiff/opposite party has filed a suit against the present petitioner/defendant for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and for means profits/damages. It is stated that the petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of the suit premises i. e. , one asbestos shed room, one tile shed verandah used as kitchen, bath and privy in the ground floor of premises No. 8/6a Sisir Bagan Road, Behala, Calcutta at a monthly rental of Rs. 250/- payable according to English Calendar month. Since the defendant did pay arrears of rent the opposite party/plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and of mesne profits/damages from the petitioner. The suit was valued at Rs. 30,010/- for one years rental as well as for damages. The petitioner has filed an application before the learned trial court under order 7 Rule 7 CPC for return of the plaint for proper presentation in the court having competent jurisdiction but the said application did not find favour by the learned trial court and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Thus the defendant/ petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this revision.

(3) MR. Ghosal learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has arbitrarily valued the suit by pulling the astronomical figures in the plaint to bring in the jurisdiction of the Assistant District Judge. He has further contended that the rental of the year has been fixed at Rs. 3,000/- whereas the means profits/damages have been valued at Rs. 27,010/- that has been calculated just to confer jurisdiction on the Assistant District Judge. It is argued that previous to filing of this suit the plaintiff/opposite party had issued a registered notice whereunder he had claimed Rs. 10/- Per diam, but how and under what circumstance he could value the suit claiming damages/mesne profits for Rs. 20,010/- in the pleadings. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance the learned Assistant District Judge should have embarked upon an enquiry to find out as to what would be the real valuation of the suit. It is contended that the learned trial Judge without making any enquiry relating to valuation of the suit has spurned the prayer of the petitioner directing him to file such application at the time of hearing of the suit. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is involved it ought to have been the primary duty of the court below for making an enquiry relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and in case it is found that the court before whom the suit is lodged has jurisdiction, it could have proceeded with further hearing of the suit and on the contrary if it is held that the plaintiff has without any basis has fixed the valuation just to bring in within jurisdiction of the Assistant District Judge, then it ought to have returned the plaint for presentation in appropriate court.

(4) IT is true that the pecuniary jurisdiction matter ordinarily need not be taken at the outset and it should be taken for consideration while hearing of the suit but in this case on a cursory glance of the pleading it appears that the plaintiff has not set-out as to how and in what manner he has valued the suit claiming damages @ Rs. 27010/ -. Therefore, in such situation keeping in view of the principle decided in AIR 1987 SC in the case of Nandita Bose v Ratanlal Nahata it does not appear that the plaintiff has valued the suit correctly. In the aforementioned decision the Supreme Court has held:

"in the instant case the landlady claimed a decree for Rs. 78,000/- for certain period in the footing that the tenants possession was unauthorised or illegal after termination of tenancy and he was liable to pay mesne profits or damages and on that basis filed suit in the High Court on valuation of mesne profits. The High Court accepting the contention of the tenant that the tenant even after the termination of the tenancy did not cease to be statutory tenant and was liable to pay only agreed rent and when arrears were calculated on that basis the tenant would not be liable to arrears which would attract the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court and directed to return the plaint for presentation before proper court. The claim for mesne profits/damages was not palpably absurd or imaginary considering the location of the premises. Under section 15 of the Code every plaint should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it and if the value of the suit was Rs. 42,000/- only it had to be filed in the City Civil Court of Calcutta and not on the Original Side of the High Court. The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts are well-settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiffs valuation in his plaint determines the court in which it can be presented. It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly over valuing or grossly under-valuing a suit. The court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Under Rule 10 of Order 7 of the Code the plaint can be returned at any stage of the suit for presentation to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. The question for consideration in this case is whether in the present case the plaint has been grossly over valued with the object of bringing it within the jurisdiction of the High Court. When the suit is filed for the recovery of money the amount claimed has to be included in determining the value of the suit. "

(5) UNDER section 15 of CPC every plaint should be instituted in the court of the lowest order competent to try it and if the value of the suit property and the claim of damages is less than Rs. 15,000/- the plaint has to be lodged before the court of the Munsif, otherwise the case has to be filed before the court of the Assistant District Judge. Though the valuation has been given in the plaint at more than Rs. 30,000/- the plaintiff has not specifically stated in the pleadings as to how he valued the claim of the mesne profit at Rs. 27010/ -. Therefore, it requires investigation by the learned Assistant District Judge as to what would be the proper valuation of the suit. In case it exceeds the jurisdiction of the Munsif it is needless to mention that the Assistant District Judge will be competent to try the suit otherwise the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation.

(6) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the opposite party has relied upon a decision reported in 1996 (1) Calcutta Law Times at page 337 in the case of Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. Sandhya Chakraborty. In view of the Supreme Court judgment stated above, I am not in a position to agree with the observation of the learned Single Judge who has taken the view that the jurisdictional matters shall be taken up for consideration along with other issues. Although the leaned Judge has referred the case of Nandia Bose v. Ratanlal Nahata, I found that such reference was made in a different context. Rather the apex court in the aforementioned Nandita Boses case held that the pecuniary jurisdictional matter shall be taken at the first instance if the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has arbitrarily valued the suit. But the learned single Judge has considered the aforesaid Nandita Boses case from the different angle. Since in view of the Supreme Courts observation in Nandita Boses case the pecuniary jurisdiction matter should be taken up at the first instance. The submissions of the petitioner that the opposite party-plaintiff has dishonestly and intentionally inflated the value of the suit in order to bring it within jurisdiction of a particular court which has otherwise no jurisdiction needs to be investigated. Therefore, I vacate the order the Assistant District Judge and direct of make an enquiry in so far as the valuation of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is concerned.

(7) ACCORDINGLY, the revisional application succeeds but in the circumstances without costs. Application succeeds