Indrajit Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the present plaintiff petitioner against the defendants who are the opposite parties before this Court. The fact relevant for the purpose of assessing this revisional application can be stated in brief thus: That the present petitioner initially brought against his mother one suit for declaration, injunction and the learned Civil Judge having jurisdiction heard that Title Suit No.329 of 1997 and subsequently after the demise of his mother the present opposite parties were substituted and as per the prayer of the petitioner the plaint was amended incorporating certain facts including a prayer for recovery of possession. Initially such prayer for amendment was rejected by the learned trial judge and against that order one revisional application was preferred being C.O. No.2820 of 2007 and that was disposed of vide order dated 12th of December, 2007. In that amendment petition a separate prayer was added for recovery of possession.
(2.) In the present revisional application the order No.96 dated 17.01.2013 has been assailed before this Court wherein the learned trial court taking into consideration Section 11 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act proceeded to examine the correctness of the valuation. In that process the learned trial court directed the collector South 24 Parganas to assess on inquiry the exact valuation of the suit property. It may be noted that as per order of this Court dated 6th of August, 2013 the said order of the learned trial court was stayed and the said stay is still continuing.
(3.) At the time of hearing of argument it was argued on behalf of the petitioner plaintiff by taking me to Section 11 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act to say that as per that Section 11 every Court has the right to assess the valuation of a particular property, if the court feels that the suit was wrongly valued and the court may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation as may be held after such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. He submitted that as per the plaint the petitioner plaintiff is entitled to assess the valuation as per his own choice. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court as reported in Kartick Mondal v. Biman Sen, 2008 (4) CHN Page-197 wherein this Court held that the plaintiffs before that court were entitled to diverse reliefs in the fact of that case but, the reliefs by way of injunction and/or recovery of possession cannot be granted unless their title in the suit property is declared and as such in that decision the plaintiffs were required to value the entire suit as per the provision contained in Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and not under Section 7(v)(b) of the said Act.;