P K KUMARA MENON Vs. PADMAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 877/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam and the respondents are the defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. Suit was one for recovery of possession of A schedule item No.3 on the strength of the title of the plaintiff from defendants 4 and 5 and also for a declaration that a Will deed and two sale deeds are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon plaint A schedule item No.3 property was also sought for. Suit was originally filed before the Munsiff Court and while pending as such before that court, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the relief of recovery of possession by incorporating a prayer that such recovery be granted after dismantling and removing a building unauthorisedly put up in the property by the defendants 4 and 5. Apparently on the basis of the objections raised by the defendants against the proposed amendment in which among other contentions the valuation of the subject matter involved in the suit was also challenged before the proposed amendment was allowed and incorporated in the plaint, the learned Munsiff has directed the plaintiff to take out a commission for ascertaining the correct value of the property. That order was challenged before this court in Writ Petition No.26984/07 by the plaintiff and, then, taking note that even as per the proposed amendment the value of the property was more than Rs.3 lakhs, this court directed the learned Munsiff to allow the amendment application and return the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court as the valuation shown exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. The learned Munsiff complied with the direction and the plaint, after amendment, was returned to the plaintiff and thereupon it was presented before the Sub Court and numbered as above. Valuation of the suit property was continued to be agitated before the Sub Court since the defendants contended proper value of the building in the property sought to be recovered has not been assessed and shown in the plaint. The learned Sub Judge passed two orders, one dated 14.10.2008 and second one dated 3rd December, 2008 on the question of valuation of the building. In the order dated 14.10.2008, the plaintiff was directed to value the building in item No.3 and to submit a valuation statement as provided in Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Ext.P1 is copy of that order. The plaintiff submitted a valuation statement showing market value of the land and building as per Section 7 of the above Act. Since the plaintiff has not shown the value of the building as directed by the court, subsequent order dated 3.12.2008 was passed by the learned Sub Judge directing him to comply with the previous order and value the building and pay the court fee payable thereof. Ext.P2 is copy of that order. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Exts.P1 and P2 orders the plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition seeking aforementioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) In response to the notice, respondents 1 to 4 (defendants 2 to 5 in the suit) entered appearance.