MITRA Vs. S SULAKSHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed the Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 4.7.2007 made in the unnumbered Suit/Plaint in O.S.SR. NO.2719 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengleput.

(2.) THE learned Principle District Judge, Chengleput has passed Order on 4.7.2007 in the unnumbered Plaint in O.S.SR. No.2719 of 2007 which runs as follows:-THE suit is filed on the basis of the Plaint document No.5 which is a sale deed dated 23.09.2004 purchased in the name of the 2nd plaintiff-Visalashi. On that basis the Suit ought to have been filed for possession of the property described in the schedule in document No.5, instead the plaintiffs have come forward with the Suit for partition which is not correct. As such the plaintiffs are directed to pay the requisite Court fee on the market value of the schedule mentioned property described in document No.5, namely Rs.15 Lakhs as detailed in Para-24 of the Plaint as per the provision of Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act instead of paying Court fee u/S.37 (2) of Court Fees Act.Time for payment of Court fee four weeksHence returned.Sd/-P.D.J4.7.2007

(3.) AGAIN on 11/6/2007, the office of the learned Principal District Judge Chengleput has made the office note which is extracted as follows:-The Counsel for plaintiff filed a Suit before this Court on 12/4/2007 and the same was returned on 12/4/2007 for the reason -How the Suit is maintainable-The Suit is re-presented before this Court today (11.06.2007) stating -the same is arising out of a Joint Development Agreement and the framing of the Suit is perfectly in order. If any doubt place it in open Court.-In this connection it is submitted the plaintiff and the first defendant did not enter into any Joint Development Agreement or without a written contract the premises was developed. Moreover, the plaintiff sought for partition in the A and B schedule properties because of misunderstanding. For Orders:-