1. Heard Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Barathan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in I.A.No.259 of 2016 in O.S.No.26 of 2008. The third defendant in the suit is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Facts in brief:

The first respondent had instituted the suit on 09.04.2008 against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for declaration and permanent injunction. At the time of institution of the suit, the suit property was valued for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,125/- was paid for declaratory relief and a sum of Rs.75.50/- was paid for bare injunction. The petitioner purchased the property on 29.09.2014 under a registered sale deed in Document No.4692/2014 for a sum of Rs.14,80,000/-.

4. The first respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.91 of 2016 seeking amendment of the prayer for recovery of possession and after the amendment was allowed, the first respondent paid a sum of Rs.20,250/- towards the court fee valuing the suit property at Rs.2,70,000/-.

5. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.259 of 2016 under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act to value the suit property for a sum of Rs.14,80,000/- and for payment of court fee under Section 25(A) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act by contending that the suit was amended in the year 2016 and on the date of amendment, the value of the suit was Rs.14,80,000/-. The application was resisted by the first respondent by filing a detailed counter.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram dismissed the application holding that once amendment is allowed, it relates back to the date of institution of the suit, by relying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and it was also observed that the property valued for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- on the date of the suit, was not challenged by the defendants and only when the suit is posted for arguments, this application was filed belatedly.

7. Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the first respondent filed the suit in the year 2008 for declaration and injunction, she filed the application for amendment seeking recovery of possession only in the year 2016. The petitioner was also impleaded as the third defendant only in the year 2015, after commencement of the trial in the suit. Since the prayer for recovery of possession was allowed in the year 2016, the plaintiff is liable to pay Court fee for the market value on the date of amendment of the prayer.

8. Mr.J.Barathan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that admittedly the petitioner is a Lis pendens purchaser and he purchased the property only in the year 2014 and he has no independent right to question the valuation of the suit property, that when the suit was instituted in the year 2008, the market value of the suit property was Rs.2,70,000/- and the same was not questioned by the original defendants 1 and 2. It is further contended that once the amendment application is allowed, it relates back to the institution of the suit and therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for payment of the court fee based on the market value in the year 2016. The learned Counsel further submitted that the application filed under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act after commencement of trial itself is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in S.N.S. Sukumaran Vs. C. Thangamuthu reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705.

9. In S.N.S. Sukumaran Vs. C. Thangamuthu reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

“31. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and having regard to the law discussed hereinabove, the refe