1. Petition against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada on C.M.P. No. 471 of 1923 in O.S. No. 6 of 1923. Petitioner filed a plaint valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 and with a Court-fee of Rs. 100 on the assumption that he was at liberty to put his own value on the suit which was for the appointment of a Receiver, and for an injunction restraining the defendant, a widow from wasting her estate. In the light of Nandan Mal v. Salig Ram A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 236. and Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasawmy Pillai  38 Mad. 922 the learned Subordinate Judge has held that plaintiff must pay an ad valorem fee and that is now admitted. The order concludes:
In the present case he has valued the suit as Rs. 10,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. So he cannot give another valuation for purposes of Court-fee.
2. To this petitioner objects urging that he is at liberty to give another value for purposes of Court-fee. I see from C.M.C. No. 942 of 1923 that the petitioner applied to amend his plaint and the Subordinate Judge ordered that he should first pay the Court-fee.
3. It is difficult to say that the order of the Court is ultra vires or that he has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity. Order 7, Rule 1(i) requires that a plaint shall contain a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of Court-fees. It is not contemplated that the subject-mater shall be given two values, one purely arbitrary and fanciful for the purposes of jurisdiction and one in strict conformity to the real value for the purposes of Court-fees.
4. In either case the valuation should conform to reality. Therefore, when a plaint contains a valuation for purposes of jurisdiction it is a natural assumption that the same valuation would apply, if it were necessary to have a valuation for an ad valorem Court-fee.
5. The case cited by petitioner in Sai-lendranath Mitra v. Ramcharan Pal 25 C.W.N. 768 is not quite in point, There, for purposes of jurisdiction the suit had been valued at Rs. 1,200 and the Court-fee leviable under Section 7, Sub-section (x) Cl (c) Court-fees Act, was on a value of Rs. 32. It was held that Rs. 32 and not Rupees 1,200 was the value for the purposes of jurisdiction. In the present suit the Court-fee leviable under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) is according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. Plaintiff has not stated the amount, but as this value, whether determined for the computation of Court-fees, or whether for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same, (see Section 8, Act VII of 1887), it is taken to be at Rs. 10,000, the amount which plaintiff has stated for the purposes of jurisdiction.
6. If the plaintiff had entered as his value for jurisdiction Rs. 10,000 and his value for ad valorem Court-fee, say Rs. 5,000 following the ruling in Sailendranath Mitra v. Ramcharan Pal (3) the Court, no doubt, would take Rs. 5,000 as the value for purposes of jurisdiction. But if the plaintiff enters as his value for jurisdiction Rs. 10,000, and owing to his misreading of the Court-fees Act omits an ad valorem valuation altogether considering that the two valuations must be the same, the Court is justified in assuming that Rs. 10,000 would also be the ad valorem valuation.
7. Nor does plaintiff really contest this position, his plea being merely one of fact, that he has made a gross blunder in giving Rs. 10,000 as. his figure. If he had reckoned the valuation for jurisdiction more carefully and put it say at Rs. 5,000, or whatever he thinks fair he would have no objection at all to the Court's carrying that figure over to the valuation for Court-fees.
8. In the circumstances I consider that the Subordinate Judge was acting within his discretion in asking petitioner to pay the Court-fee according to his own Sgure ; and then if he wished to correct any error in his plaint to proceed by way of amendment.
9. The petition is dismissed with costs.