GANDHIMATHI Vs. P.BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the suo motu additional issue framed by the Court below on 1.3.2010, with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in O.S.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this civil revision petition, are as follows:-

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that any objection with regard to insufficient Court fee paid on the plaint or with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction should be raised before the first hearing of the suit or before the evidence was recorded. Moreover, there is no need to try pecuniary jurisdictional issue either as a preliminary issue or as an independent issue, since the question with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised as a defence by the respondents. Therefore, the act of the Court below in framing additional issue suo motu with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction is not legally sustainable and as such, the additional issue framed by the Court below with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit is liable to be set aside. In this connection, he has relied on the decisions reported in R.C.Sundaravalli vs. T.D.Shakila, 2002 1 CTC 33 and Laljivora vs. Srividya, 2001 2 CTC 411.