A MURUGESAN Vs. SATHEESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/first respondent/ plaintiff has preferred the civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 05.12.2007 in I.A.No.783 of 2007 in O.S.No.228 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy in allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 3 and 4/petitioners under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and Order VII Rule 11(b) and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by directing the revision petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff to value the Plaint as per Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.783 of 2007, has inter alia observed that 'when the revision petitioner/plaintiff prays for a declaratory relief in respect of the suit property and a consequent relief of permanent injunction, then the plaintiff has to value the plaint as per Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and accordingly, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has to take steps for amending the plaint and resultantly, allowed the application.'

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff submits that the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.783 of 2007 directing the revision petitioner/ plaintiff to value the suit under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 is unsustainable in law and that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the revision petitioner/plaintiff borrowed money from the defendants 1 and 2 who are his close relatives and only as a security, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff has executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the first defendant and a sale agreement in favour of the second defendant which are misused by the defendants 1 and 2 for the purpose of executing the sale deed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and further that the trial Court has failed to consider the plea of the revision petitioner/plaintiff that he has executed five unfilled promissory note forms and two sets of blank stamp papers while obtaining the loans from defendants 1 and 2 and that the trial Court has considered the decision of this Court in Chellakannu V. Kolanji (2006) 4 M.L.J. 285 in a wrong perspective to the facts of the present case and therefore, prays for allowing the revision in the interest of justice.