Defendants may raise issues regarding improper valuation or insufficient court fees through an application before the first hearing, even if a written statement has not been filed.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The 1^st defendant in a civil suit in O.S.No.27 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court, Coonoor, has preferred the revision, aggrieved by the order of the District Munsif, Coonoor, Nilgiris, in his application seeking to relegate an enquiry in order to determine the valuation of the subject matter and the propriety of the Court Fees paid thereon.

2. The 1^st respondent as plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession as well as consequential permanent injunction. In the said suit, the 1^st defendant took out an application under Section 12 (2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 r/w Section 151 of CPC to conduct an enquiry and to determine the valuation of the suit property and to call upon the 1^st respondent/plaintiff to make good any deficit in the Court Fee actually payable.

3. The said application was resisted by the 1^st respondent and the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the revision petitioner had not filed his written statement and the objection therefore, regarding incorrect valuation, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff, despite service of notice, has neither chosen to appear in person not through counsel. I have proceeded to hear Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner/1^st defendant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has seriously erred in holding that the issue of Court Fee cannot be taken up as a preliminary issue on the only ground that the revision petitioner had not filed his written statement in the said suit. He would further state that even on a casual perusal of the relief sought for in the plaint, it is clear that the reliefs are undervalued and he would further state that under Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it is not mandatory that the issue of Court Fee should be raised only by filing a written statement, but it can also be filed by way of separate application for this very specific purpose. He would also state that even the value as set out in the plaint was Rs.1,01,000/- which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, which could try the suits only up to the value of Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decisions of this Court in Minor R.Boopathy and Others Vs. Ranjeetham and Others , reported in 2019 4 L.W 863. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore submit that the Trial Court had clearly fell in error in dismissing the application filed under Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act and pray for the revision being allowed.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

7. The suit has been filed for declaration, recovery of possession and injunction. The said suit has been contested by the revision petitioner/1^st defendant. The revision petitioner, on receipt of summons in the said suit, has taken out an application under Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act to relegate an enquiry in order to determine the valuation of the subject matter and the proprietary of the Court paid thereon. Section 12 (2) of the said Act is extracted hereunder for easy reference.

“12.(2). Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding