This Memorandum of Civil Revision is directed against the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 20.06.2014 and made in the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.141 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants 1 and 4, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the revision petitioners may hereinafter be referred to as the defendants 1 and 4 and the respondent herein be referred to as the plaintiff wherever the context so require.

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai as against four defendants of which the revisions petitioners are the defendants 1 and 4, seeking the relief of recovery of vacant possession of the I schedule property as a vacant site after removing of the offending constructions made thereon in the properties specified in the Schedule I and for redemption of the properties specified in Schedule II and also for surrendering possession together with buildings thereon, for redemption of the properties specified in Schedule III by delivering possession together with the buildings thereon and also to remove all the offending constructions made in the Schedule II and III of the plaint. The plaintiff has also sought for the relief of damage for wrongful use and occupation of the Schedule I to III and for render of accounts.

5. It appears from the records that the defendants 1 and 4 alone have contested the suit by filing their written statements. No reference is available as to whether the defendants 2 and 3 have filed their written statements.

6. In the meanwhile, the defendants 1 and 4 have filed an application in I.A.No.1047 of 2013 on 05.12.2013 under Order 14, Rule 5 and section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure for framing of an additional issue along with other issues as to "whether the suit is properly valued or not?"

7. Unfortunately, the fate of this petition is not known. Under this circumstance, the defendants 1 and 4 had taken out another application in I.A.No.141 of 2014 on 10.02.2014 under section 21(2) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court.

8. This petition was contested by the plaintiff by filing his counter affidavit. After hearing both sides, the trial court has proceeded to dismiss that application on 20.06.2014.

9. Having been aggrieved by this order, the defendants 1 and 4 have approached this court with this revision, after invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

11. Before we go into the merits of the case, it may be better to have reference to the provisions of section 33(8) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.

12. Sub section 8 of section 33 has been extracted as under:-

"(8) In a suit against a mortgagee for redemption of a mortgage, fee shall be computed on the amount due on the mortgage as stated in the plaint or on one-fourth of the principal amount secured under the mortgage, whichever is higher: Provided that, where the amount due on the mortgage is found to be more than the amount on which fee has been paid by the plaintiff, no decree shall be passed until the deficit fee is paid:

Provided further that, in the case of a usufructuary or anomalous mortgage, if the plaintiff prays for redemption as well as for accounts of surplus profits, fee shall be levied separately on the relief for accounts as in a suit for accounts."

13. On a meticulous analysis of sub-section 8 of section 33 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 for the purpose of computing the court fee in a suit against the mortgagee for redemption of a mortgage, the following two options are given to the plaintiff (mortgagor