K SELVARAJ Vs. CHITRADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.06.2013 made in I.A.No.257 of 2013 in O.S.No.403 of 2010 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode.

(2.) The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.403 of 2010 for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property and also claiming damages for use and occupation of the suit property @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession stating that the property was purchased by her husband, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit and subsequently, he executed a Settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and in the suit property, the 3rd defendant/husband of the plaintiff is doing business along with the defendants 1 to 2 and since she needs the property, she filed the suit for recovery of possession. The 2nd defendant/revision petitioner herein filed a written statement and contested the same. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.257 of 2013 in O.S.No.403 of 2010 for appointment of Commissioner with a direction to visit the suit property along with a chartered Valuer/Government Engineer, P.W.D(building), to estimate the value of the suit property and to file a report with plan, stating that the suit is not properly valued and the Court Fee paid is not correct. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a detailed counter. The trial Court has dismissed the application, against which, the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the plaintiff/respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.403 of 2010 for recovery of possession and she valued the suit property under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act at Rs.10,00,000/- and paid the Court Fee of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, the value of property is more than of Rs.10,00,000/- and with a view to evade the Court Fee, the plaintiff/respondent herein had undervalued the property. Hence, it is necessary to appoint a Commissioner to visit the property along with the experts to value the suit property and on that basis, the Court Fee payable has to be decided. But, the trial Court has not considered the said aspect and without framing any issues in respect of the valuation of the property and the payment of Court Fees, has dismissed the application as not maintainable. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court.