IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.07.2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P. (PD). No. 2893 of 2017 Sampoornam ...Petitioner Vs.

1. N.G.Deivasigamani

2. Senthilkumar

3. D.Karthiga

4. C.Kumarasamy ...Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to allow the above C.R.P. Seeking to receive the plaint and consequently direct to dispose it on merits in O.S. No. 239 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judge, Subordinate Court, Erode.

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Kannan For Respondents : Mr. K.S.Jeyaganeshan (RR1, 3 & 4)

R2-Not ready notice

O R D E R

This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff had examined herself as PW1 and the defendants had also examined themselves as DW1 to DW5. Pending the suit, insofar as the fourth defendant is concerned, the matter was settled between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant and in the suit, a compromise memo was filed. When the suit was proceeding insofar as other defendants are concerned, the defendants produced guideline value to state that the value of the property is about 54 lakhs and consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge felt that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The said order is challenged before me by way of revision.

2. It is a settled position of law that the issue of court fee can be raised prior to the recording of evidence on the merits of the case. This is as per section 12 sub-clause 2 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The record of proceedings shows that not only the plaintiff has completed the evidence but the defendants have also entered into witness box and tendered evidences on the merits of the case. The guideline values also does not seem to have been filed as an exhibit when the recording of evidence was going on. It has been filed before the Court and the Court had taken cognizance of the same. To take cognizance of the unmarked documents, be it a guideline value issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is unknown. The learned Trial Judge was wrong in returning the plaint. However, due to the subsequent passing of the legislation enhancing the jurisdiction of the District Court to unlimited jurisdiction and restricting the jurisdiction of the subordinate judge to the pecuniary limit, the suit as on today cannot be tried by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is unfortunate that the issue of court fee has delayed the proceedings, which was initiated in the year 2006 by the period of 17 years.

3. I have to place on record that in a matter of partition, whatever be the value of the property under the Act, only fixed court fee is charged on the plaintiff. The plaintiff having paid the proper court fee and no issue having been framed whether the valuation is correct or not, the order of the learned trial Judge dated 07.12.2016 has to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside.

4. I take note of the subsequent event on the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction and direct the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode to transfer the papers other than the plaint in O.S. No. 239 of 2006 to the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode for re-numbering. The learned Principal District Judge is requested to try this proceeding from the stage in which it was transferred from the learned Subordinate Judge i.e. from the stage of examination of the DW5. The suit having been pending for 17 years priority must be given to the same and the said suit must be disposed on or before 31.12.2023. The learned subordinate Judge would transfer the papers to the learned Principal District Judge, Erode within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned Principal District Judge, Erode shall take up the plaint and proceed as directed above with all necessary urgency as this suit requires.

5. The plaint having been presented before this Court at the time of numbering the CRP, the Registry is directed to return the plaint