N SEENIVASAN Vs. P GURUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner herein and others in O.S.No.236 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Sivakasi for the relief of declaration to declare the suit property belongs to Shri Nindra Narayana Perumal Temple, consequently restraining the 1st defendant from putting up any construction or alter the structure of the suit property, to declare the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.172 of 2010 will not bind on the temple and for permanent injunction from handing over possession of the property to the 1st defendant, except to the 2nd defendant in pursuance of pending E.P.No.73 of 2012 or any other execution petition.

(2.) Pending disposal of the said suit, the petitioner herein/1st defendant took out an application in I.A.No.650 of 2013 to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, on the ground that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit property and barred by limitation. Admittedly the market value of the suit property would be @ Rs.25 lakhs to the extent of 1,302 sq ft, whereas the plaintiff has valued the suit property as if the market value of the suit property is @ Rs.1,000/- and paid court fee and filed the suit before the learned District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. The value of the suit property has been mentioned as Rs.1,000/- so as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif Court. Therefore, the learned District Munsif Court, Sivakasi is not having jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence the plaint is liable to rejected on the ground of under valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the plaintiff / respondent herein contending that the Engineer Certificate filed by the petitioner herein cannot be accepted, since the Engineer is not an approved Engineer. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner herein cannot be accepted that the suit property would worth about Rs.25 lakhs. The plaintiff has paid the correct court fee by mentioning the proper value for the suit property. Further the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and the court fee could be decided only at the time of trial. The plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the aforesaid ground. The intention of the petitioner is only to drag on the trial of the suit and to crap the property of the temple. Therefore he prays to dismiss the aforesaid application.