ORDER

This Civil Revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final Order dated 19.07.2019 made in I.A No.2 of 2019 in O.S No.1059 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S No.

1059 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem for the relief of declaration to declare sale deed as null and void and for other consequential relief in respect of suit properties, the said suit is contested by the defendant and denied the plaintiffs case, the Trial Court framed issues and both side evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments. At that time, the defendants filed I.A No. 2 of 2019 praying to frame additional issues with regard to payment of Court fee and also another issue with regard to land lord and tenant relationship. The said application was strongly objected by the plaintiff and the same could not be accepted without detailed counter. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court allowed I.A No. 2 of 2019 by holding that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, additional issues have to be framed.

3.Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition by stating that the Trial Court failed to take note of the fact with regard to issue relating to Court fee which has to be decided under Section 12(2) of Court fee Act, as a preliminary issue and not after the examining of the Trial Court, without appreciating legal aspects and had erroneously allowed the application. To support his contention, he relied the Judgment reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705 in Sukumaran and others Vs C.Thangamuthu and others:

31. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and having regard to the law discussed hereinabove, the reference is answered as under :-

(1) The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Section 12) enacted by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List, albeit inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Order XIV, Rule 2) and being in compliance with the requirement of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, having been given assent by the President of India, shall prevail over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2) When a defendant comes forward with a case pleaded in the written statement questioning the correctness of the valuation of the suit property and payment of court fee and asks the Court, by an application, to decide it first before deciding the suit on merits, then a duty is cast upon the Court under Section 12(2) of the State Act to first decide the objection before deciding the suit on merits.

(3) However, before proceeding to decide the objection with regard to valuation and court fee as provided under Section 12(2) of the State Act, the Court shall prima facie satisfy itself, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record, that the objection raised by the defendant has substance.

(4) Such objection with regard to improper valuation of the suit and insufficiency of court fee shall be entertained by the Court only before the hearing of the suit on merits commences and witnesses are examined. Section 12(2) of the State Act makes it clear that such objection shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded on the merits of the case.

(5) Exercise of right by the defendant as contained in Section 12(2) of the Act must be bona fide and not with an ulterior motive of dragging the suit on this issue. Hence, the Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments in hearing of such application, and in the event the Court finds that the defendant is not diligent or co-operating with the Court in the disposal of such objection expeditiously, then the Court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit on merits and decide all issues, including the one relating to the valuation of the suit and the adequacy or otherwise of court fee, together.

4. Further, he relied another Judgemen