Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
T. Lakshmi – Petitioner
Versus
K. Ganesan – Respondent
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 1650 and 1652 of 2019
Decided On : 22-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Manisekaran.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S.V. Sethuraman.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 - Section 25 - Civil Revision Petitions - Suit in O.S. has been filed by respondent/plaintiff on file of learned District Munsif, for relief of permanent injunction with regard to plaint schedule properties – Held, defendant in her counter claim valued property as Rs. 5 lakhs, which exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of trial Court - Where counter claim filed by defendant exceeded pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of Court, it cannot be allowed and trial Court has rightly not allowed counter claim but failed to order return of written statement - Prayer for transferring suit is also not maintainable, because defendant had not file any separate suit - If separate suit has been filed, it can be transferred to competent Court when Court finds it, when it has no pecuniary jurisdiction - While filing counter claim along with written statement, it cannot be transferred to competent Court, only written statement alone has to be returned - Therefore, Court find no merit in revision petitions - For above mentioned reasons, both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and Principal District Munsif, is directed to return written statement along with counter claim and inform revision petitioner/defendant to file written statement with regard to case alone - Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the orders and the decreetal orders dated 26.02.2019 in I.A. Nos. 370 of 2018 and 1169 of 2017 and, thereby, restore the counter claim in O.S. No. 501 of 2015, which was dismissed on 26.02.2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
2. Both the revision petitions are filed against the order passed in I.A. Nos. 370 of 2018 and 1169 of 2017, arising from O.S. No. 501 of 2015. Since the two C.R.P. are inter connected and arising from the same Original Suit, common order is passed.
3. The suit in O.S. No. 501 of 2015 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the file of the learned District Munsif, Alandur, for the relief of permanent injunction with regard to plaint schedule properties.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein/defendant has filed the I.A. No. 1169 of 2017 in O.S. No. 501 of 2015 for the relief of (i) to take the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as Preliminary issue; (ii) to order to transfer the suit to the Court of the appropriate jurisdiction; further the respondent herein/plaintiff has filed the I.A. No. 370 of 2018 in I.A. No. 1169 of 2017 in O.S. No. 501 of 2015, for the relief of reject the counter claim statement of the revision petitioner/defendant.
5. After due consideration, the learned trial Judge, while allowing the application in I.A. No. 370 of 2018 by order dated 26.02.2019, dismissed the application in I.A. No. 1169 of 2017 by order dated 26.02.2019.
6. Aggrieved by the decrees of the learned trial Judge, the revision petitioner/defendant is before this Court with these Civil Revision Petitions.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent/plaintiff-K. Ganesan, filed the suit in O.S. No. 501 of 2015 against the revision petitioner/defendant for the relief of permanent injunction with regard to plaint schedule properties. The revision petitioner filed written statement with a counter claim with a prayer to declare the revision petitioner/defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property with a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to vacate and handover the possession to the defendant. The plaint schedule property is valued Rs. 5 lakhs and paid the Court fees of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 and amended Act 2017.
8. After the counter claim, the respondent/plaintiff filed the I.A. No. 370 of 2018 to reject the counter claim as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is exceeded. This revision petitioner/defendant filed the application in I.A. No. 1169 of 2017 to take up the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issue with a prayer to transfer the suit to the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
9. The trial Court allowed the I.A. No. 370 of 2018 and also dismissed the I.A. No. 1169 of 2017. The orders of the trial Court is unjust. The trial Court ought to have transferred the suit to some other Court as the pecuniary jurisdiction has exceeded. He further reiterated other grounds raised in the grounds of revisions and pleaded to allow the revision petitions.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order of the trial Court, since the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it rightly allowed the petition, to reject the counter claim.
11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
12. The two revision petitions have been filed against the two orders passed in I.A. Nos. 370 of 2018 and 1169 of 2017. The I.A. No. 370 of 2018 is concerned with rejection of counter claim. I.A. No. 1169 of 2017 is concerned with, to take the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issue and order to transfer the suit to the Court, which is having appropriate jurisdiction.
13. The fact of the case is that the respondent filed the suit against the defendant (revision petitioner), for permanent injunction with regard to plaint schedule properties. The defendant/revision
