LALJIVORA Vs. SRIVIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order and decree dated 6-11-2000 made in I.A. No. 67 of 2000 in O.S. No. 435 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. The 6th defendant in the suit is the civil revision petitioner. The respondent filed a suit seeking for a relief of declaration of several sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 to 10 on various dates are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs since the suit was valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (Act XIV of 1955) hereinafter called as "The Act". According to the petitioner who was the 6th defendant in the suit, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 40 of the Act and if the suit is valued under Section 40 of the Act, the Court-fees should be paid on the market value of the suit property and in such event the learned District Munsif, Melur may not have the jurisdiction. Therefore, the 6th defendant filed I.A. No. 67 of 2000 under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act and Section 151, C.P.C.to frame an additional issue if necessary relating to valuation and court-fees in O.S. No. 435 of 1996 and hear argument on that issue before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Melur by order dated 6-11-2000. It is against this order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act is totally erroneous since in the event the petitioner succeeds in the petition and the plaintiff is directed to pay the proper court-fee, the Court may not have jurisdiction to try the suit itself. Therefore, in all probability the learned District Munsif ought to have framed an additional issue relating to valuation and Court-fees and hear the arguments. In this connection, the learned Counsel would rely upon a judgment of this Court reported in Parvathy v. N. Arumugham, (1988) 1 Mad LJ 92, wherein this Court while considering the scope of Section 12(2) of the Act held that the Court below ought to have allowed the application and decided the question of payment of court-fee on the relief as preliminary issue before proceeding with the other issues framed in respect of the valuation of the claim. This Court came to the above conclusion since when the court-fee to be paid by the plaintiff exceeds the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the valuation, the Court is certainly bound to return the plaint for presentation before proper Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the suit was filed as early as in the year 1996 and the revision petitioner filed written statement also and the issues were framed in the year 1997. The civil revision petitioner also filed additional written statement during the year 1998. The suit was posted in the list during 1998-99 on certain occasions. Only on 6-11-2000, the civil revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 67 of 2000 under Section 12(2) of the Act. The said petition has been filed only to delay the disposal of the suit on the ground of belated application. In this context the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in Major Ramachandran v. Mrs. Rema Jayarajan, rep. by Power Agent, (1999) 1 CTC 705. The learned Counsel would further contend that the issue relating to valuation of property for the purpose of court-fee cannot be decided as preliminary issue. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the civil revision petition has to be dismissed.