ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the Sub Court, Namakkal dated 09.12.2014 in IA.No.155 of 2013 in OS.No.129 of 2012.

This civil revision has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal in IA.No.155 of 2013 in OS.No.129 of 2012 dated 09.12.2014.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in OS.No.129 of 2012.

3. The brief facts is that the revision petitioner/plaintiff had lend a sum of Rs.3lakhs to the second respondent/first defendant- Kaliannan on 01.06.2008 for his urgent family expenses. In pursuance to which he executed a promissory note in favour of the revision petitioner on the same day for the said amount agreeing to repay with interest at 1.50per Rs.100/-p.m. The first defendant did not paid any amount or interest in spite of plaintiff's several request. The revision petitioner demanded to repay the loan amount, whereas the second respondent/first defendant without repaying the amout attempted to alienate his immovable properties. Thereby the revision petitioner was constrained to file suit for recovery of money against the second respondent/first defendant in OS.No.206 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal. In the suit, revision petitioner filed IA.No.924 of 2009 to furnish security and notice was ordered by the trial Court. The first defendant was served with the notice and he furnished some other security and since it was not acceptable, the plaintiff objected to it. During the pendency of the said application, the first defendant sold the suit property to the second defendant/first petitioner on 27.01.2010. Whileso, after full fledged enquiry, the trial Court in IA.No.924 of 2009 in OS.No.206 of 2009 ordered attachment of the property. Aggrieved against the said order of attachment, the second respondent/first defendant filed an appeal in CMA.No.1 of 2011 before the District Judge, Namakkal. After detailed enquiry the said appeal was also dismissed on 30.11.2011 by the District Judge, Namakkal. Thereafter, the second respondent/first defendant did not pursue with the matter further. Since, the sale deed executed by the second respondent/first defendant in favour of the first respondent/second defendant was only with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, the revision petitioner filed the present OS.No.129 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Namakkal to declare the sale deed dated 27.01.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property as null and void being a fraudulent transfer and to consequentially restrain the defendants and their men from in any manner altering the nature of the suit property.

4. The respondents filed their written statement and the first respondent/second defendant filed petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in IA.No.155 of 2013 in OS.No.129 of 2012 seeking to reject the plaint. Though several grounds were raised by the first respondent/second defendant, the trial Court by an order dated 09.12.2014, while dismissing the petition to reject the plaint observed that the suit had been wrongly valued and directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff to pay the Court fee in accordance with Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 [herein after referred to as “Act”]. The present revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order with regard to the direction to pay the Court fee in accordance with Section 25(d) of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though IA.No.155 of 2013 in OS.No.129 of 2012 has been ordered in favour of the revision petitioner. The revision petition has been filed challenging the limited aspect in the order of the trial Court directing the revision petitioner to pay the Court fee in accordance with Section 25(d) of the Act. He would further submit that though the prayer in the suit is for declarat