A KARTHIKEYAN Vs. R SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed against the order passed in LA. No. 55 of 2010 in O.S. No. 405 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.

(2.) The revision Petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3466 of 2010 is the Plaintiff in the suit and he filed the suit for declaration that he is entitled to half share in the suit property and for injunction. He valued the suit at 25,000/- towards his share and according to the Defendants 1 and 2, the properties worth about more than 17,00,000/- and therefore, the Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the Defendants 1 and 2 filed LA. No. 55 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of Code of Civil Procedure for returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. In that application, the lower Court has found that the property was not properly valued and the Plaintiff has to value the property on the basis of the market value and also held that the market value on the date of suit be not less than 8,68,677/- and directed the Plaintiff to take steps to amend the valuation of the suit property and pay proper Court fee thereon. This order is challenged by the Plaintiff in C.R.P. No. 3466 of 2010 and also by the Defendants 1 and 2 in C.R.P. No. 2565 of 2010.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner that under Order 7 Rule 10, such direction cannot be given by this Court and when any application is filed under Order 7, Rule 11(b), the Court can reject the plaint, after the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is not properly valued and therefore, the Court should not have passed such direction, directing the Plaintiff to value the suit properly.