The objection regarding improper valuation shall not be entertained after the hearing of the suit and the petition filed under section under Order 14(1) CPC and section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1996 is not maintainable.

The defendant in O.S.No.300 of 2006 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of possession of the suit property stating that he was the absolute owner of the property and due to some financial crisis, he approached the revision petitioner for financial assistance and the revision petitioner also advanced various amounts on various dates and the revision petitioner was put in possession of the suit property under leave and license on 20.05.1995 on condition that the revision petitioner should vacate after the respondent/plaintiff repaid the amount and in the year 1997, the respondent/plaintiff repaid the amount and requested the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession. The revision petitioner without handing over the possession, sent a notice stating that he was put in possession of the property on the basis of the agreement of sale and he was in possession as an agreement holder and also filed a suit in O.S.No.6514 of 2002 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.10.2005 and even thereafter, the revision petitioner did not vacate the suit property and therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of possession and for damages.

3. The revision petitioner filed a written statement stating that he entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff/respondent and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-on 10.01.1994 and also made several payments, totaling Rs.33,00,000/- on various dates and having regard to the payment made by him, he was put in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement of sale and he never agreed to vacate the suit property on receipt of the payment made by the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff also did not make any payment and as his possession was threatened and interfered with, he filed a suit in O.S.No.6514 of 2002 for permanent injunction and being an agreement holder, he was entitled to be in possession of the property and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.19911 of 2011 under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC to try the issue regarding valuation of the suit property as a preliminary issue and also filed I.A.No.19912 of 2012 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to receive additional written statement and counter claim and both these applications were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed.

4. CRP(PD)No.2694 of 2012 was filed against the order dismissing I.A.No.19911 of 2011 filed by the revision petitioner under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC to decide the preliminary issue regarding the valuation of the suit property and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to try and to decide the suit. CRP(PD)No.2915 of 2012 was filed against the dismissal of I.A.No.19912 of 2011 in rejecting the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to receive additional written statement and counter claim.

5. Mr.A.Venkatesan, the learned counsel representing Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanatham submitted that the court below without properly appreciating the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2012(5)CTC 705, [S.N.S.Sukumaran vs. C.Thangamuthu] erred in holding that the application to try the issue of proper court fee and valuation of the suit as a preliminary issue cannot be entertained after the commencement of the trial, without properly appreciating that the trial has not commenced in this case.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that though the suit O.S.No.300 of 2006 was posted in the list on 13.12.2006 and the plaintiff filed proof affidavit and marked his documents, on that date the defendant was set ex-parte and on 29.03.2007 the revision petitioner filed