O R D E R

The Revision Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.108 of 2013, on the file of Sub-Court, Bhavani for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 07.03.2013 as null and void on the ground that it was fraudulently created by the 1st defendant colluded with the 3rd defendant and other reliefs.

2. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing their written statement. Issues were framed and evidences were examined on the side of plaintiffs and on the side of defendants, D.W.1 and 2 were examined. At that time, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No. 797 of 2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. praying to amend the pleadings, more particularly, with regard to payment of court fee. The said application was strongly objected by the defendants stating that even at the time of filing written statement, he disputed the prayer claimed by the plaintiffs, but after completion of examination of witnesses, they filed this application to amend the prayer, as such is not maintainable in law and also contended that no reason assigned by the plaintiff for filing the said application belatedly. On considering submissions of both sides, the trial court dismissed the application holding that after completion of evidence, the said application was filed and if the said application is allowed, there may be a change in the character of suit. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners submitted that the trial court failed to take note of the fact that in a suit for declaration, the plaintiffs have to prove their title over the property by adducing their evidence, because these plaintiffs are not parties to the document and the present application was filed only to amend the court fee because at the time of filing of the suit, he paid a court fee under Sec.27(c) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation (Amended) Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as 'Act') due to lack of due diligence. Considering the prayer in the plaint, the plaintiffs have to pay court fee under Sec.40 of the said Act, however, if he is not permitted to pay the said court fee, his valuable right with regard to the property will be defeated. Furthermore, amending the plaint with regard to court fee would not change the character of the suit. But, without appreciating those legal aspects, the trial court erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed to set aside the same.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents/defendants submitted that even at the time of filing written statement itself, they categorically stated the payment of court fee paid by the plaintiffs is incorrect, but the plaintiffs not taken any steps to amend the court fee and only after completion of evidence on both sides, they come forward with the said application, as such, is highly belated one, besides no reason assigned for filing the said application. Hence, the trial court rightly appreciated the said fact, which needs no interference. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for revision petitioners as well as respondents and perused the records. 6. On considering submissions of both sides and on perusal of records, it reveals that the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void and paid court fee under Sec.27(c) of the Act. Admittedly, as per the contention of plaintiffs, the sale deed said to be executed by the 1st defendant with 2nd defendant is not a valid sale deed. Relying the ratio laid down in the case of J.Vasanthi and others vs. N.Ramani Kanthammal (dead) rep. by legal representatives and others reported in 2017 (11) SC 852 : 2017 (5) SCC (Civ.296 : 2017 SCC Online SC 901, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :-

"A. Court fees – T.N. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (14 of 1955) – S.40 o