SUSEELA Vs. A S L RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of challenge in this civil revision petition filed before this Court by the plaintiffs 2 to 6 (1st plaintiff since deceased), the petitioners herein, is the fair order and decretal order dated 12-10-1995 made by the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, in I. A. No. 1593 of 1994 in O. S. No. 1036 of 1993 upholding the preliminary objection raised by the first defendant, the respondent herein on finding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for suit properties has not been properly valued, as the suit properties have to be valued as house sites.

(2.) "It is unfortunate that long years have been spent by the Court below on a combat between two parties on the question of court-fee leaving the real issues to be fought between them to come up leisurely. Two things have to be made clear. Courts should be anxious to grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral ones. Secondly, the court-fee, if it seriously restricts the rights of a person to seek his remedies in Courts of justice, should be strictly construed. After all access to justice is the basis of the legal system. In that view, where there is a doubt, reasonable, of course, the benefit must go to him who says that the lesser court-fee alone be paid."

(3.) The observation given above is made by the Apex Court in the decision in Lakshmi Ammal v. K. M. Madhavakrishnan, (1978) 4 SCC 15 : (AIR 1978 SC 1607), while the similar issue had cropped up for consideration. In my considered opinion, the above observation would apply in all fours in the present case.