Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Indrani (Died) – Appellant
Versus
K. Subramani – Respondent
ORDER :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.732 of 2010.
1. The said suit has been filed for a relief of declaration and delivery of possession. Some of the defendants took out an application to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. The said Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and facts and can be decided only after Trial. Thereafter, Trial commenced and on the side of the plaintiffs and P.W.1 was examined. In the course of cross examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the cost of the building in the suit property alone would be of a value of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and also admitted that the land cost on the date of filing of the suit was above Rs.4.5 crores.
2. Taking advantage of such admissions made by P.W.1, the defendants took out an Application to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the proper Court, after making up the deficit Court fee. The said Application was initially allowed by the Trial Court as against which the appellants filed C.M.A.No.38 of 2017 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The said CMA came to be allowed
The valuation of a suit is determined by the nature of the relief claimed, not solely by the market value of the property involved.
Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.
A defendant must file a written statement to dispute the plaintiff's valuation; reliance on external valuation certificates by the court is an improper basis for rejecting a plaint.
Point of law: Court Fee - It is evident that the Court has to find cut that the claim is under valued. Then at least require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and fix a time to pay deficit Court....
The issue of proper court fees being paid is essentially an issue between the plaintiff and the State, and the defendant cannot be termed as an 'aggrieved party' to invoke the revisional jurisdiction....
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.
The Court has the discretion to extend the time for deposit of the court fee, and once the court fee is paid within the extended time, it would be treated as having been paid at the first instance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
