INDRANI Vs. K.SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.732 of 2010. The said suit has been filed for a relief of declaration and delivery of possession. Some of the defendants took out an application to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. The said Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and facts and can be decided only after Trial. Thereafter, Trial commenced and on the side of the plaintiffs and P.W.1 was examined. In the course of cross examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the cost of the building in the suit property alone would be of a value of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 and also admitted that the land cost on the date of filing of the suit was above Rs.4.5 crores.

(2.) Taking advantage of such admissions made by P.W.1, the defendants took out an Application to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the proper Court, after making up the deficit Court fee. The said Application was initially allowed by the Trial Court as against which the appellants filed C.M.A.No.38 of 2017 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The said CMA came to be allowed holding that the Trial has commenced and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 would prevail over Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and having already filed a petition to decide the issue of valuation and insufficient Court fee at the preliminary stage, they cannot make use of the provisions of the Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint, that too, after trial has commenced. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Krishnakumar for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 21.