1. The issues and parties involved in both the Civil Revision petitions are one and the same and therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in CRP No.4749 of 2013 is the third defendant, petitioner in CRP No.256 of 2014 is the first defendant, and first respondent in both the CRPs is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1222 of 2011. The first respondent originally filed the above suit in C.S.No.382 of 2005 before this Court for the following relief’s -

(a) make a declaration that the purported auction sale of the property said to have taken aplace on 30.05.2005 purporting to be under the exercise of power under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act is hit by fraud and hence null and void.

(b) grant a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 namely the mortgagee, the auctioneer and/or the auction purchaser from, in any way, executing and/or registering any sale deed in pursuance of the purported auction in favour of the 3rd defendant auction purchaser or anyone claiming under him and/or acting on his behalf.

(c) granting a decree for a redemption of the mortgaged property, more fully described in the schedule hereunder, declaring that upon payment of a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- the defendant shall be directed to deliver to the plaintiff, the mortgaged instrument and all documents in his possession relating to the property execute and register and acknowledgment, in writing to the effect that the interest created by the mortgagee has been extinguished.

(e) make a declaration that the clause in the mortgage deed dated 29.06.2001 charging compound interest and interest @ 36% p.a under the head default interest is usurious and unconsciable and not enforceable in law.

Subsequently, the first respondent filed Application No.1645 of 2006 in the said suit for amendment of the plaint to include the relief in Para 16 (f) as follows -

16(f) make a declaration that the execution and registration of the sale deed dated 25.04.2005 registered as document No.1649 of 2005 with the Sub-Registrar Office, Purasawalkam is illegal and null & void and not binding upon the plaintiff and the defendants 4 to 9.

3. The first respondent also sought for amendment of the plaint by inserting Paras 13(A) to 13(G). The petitioners opposed the said application. This Court, by order dated 08.12.2008 allowed the said application and permitted the first respondent to amend the plaint as prayed for, subject to the condition that court fee for the prayer sought for has to be paid. This Court granted four weeks time to the first respondent to carry out the amendment and file amended copy of the plaint. Subsequently, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was enhanced to Rs.25 Lakhs and hence the suit was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S.No.1222 of 2011.

4. The petitioners filed written statement in C.S.No.382 of 2005 on 08.12.2008 and additional written statement after amendment before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 22.08.2012. The petitioners in CRP No.4749 of 2013 filed I.A.No.13640 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC and the petitioner in CRP No.256 of 2014 filed I.A.No.14309 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 (c) CPC for rejection of plaint. According to the petitioners, this Court ordered amendment to include the prayer in Para 16 (g) on condition that the first respondent pays the deficit court fee. The first respondent carried out the amendment without paying the court fee either before this Court or before the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, after transfer. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has not properly valued the relief as per amendment and failed to pay the court fee. If the first respondent is permitted to value the relief properly and allowed to pay the requisite court fee, the City Civil Court will not have the jurisdiction to try the suit after amendment. Hence, the petitioners prayed for rejection o