JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in COS No. 1956 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Commercial Court at Egmore is the appellant herein aggrieved by the Judgment dated 05.02.2025, by which Judgment, the Commercial Court had returned the plaint under OrderVII Rule 10(1) CPC for representation before the appropriate Court by fixing the value of the suit for the relief of declaration at Rs.30/- crores and after payment of necessary Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (the Act).

2. The appellant appeared as party-in-person through video conference. He contended that he had instituted the suit seeking a declaration that the document dated 29.05.2008 claimed as a guarantee, executed by him in favour of the first defendant, IndusInd Bank Ltd., Nungambakkam, Chennai, in respect of the debts of the second defendant/Subiksha Trading Services Ltd., Chennai, as void abinitio and unenforceable and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from making or pursuing a claim against the plaintiff in connection with the deed of guarantee dated 29.05.2008 and for costs of the suit.

3. In the cause of action in the plaint dated 28.10.2011, it had been contended that the plaintiff had executed the guarantee deed in the office of the first defendant on 29.05.2008. Subsequently in the year 2010, the first defendant had filed O.A.No. 181 of 2011 raising a claim under the guarantee against the plaintiff.

4. It had been contended that the contract of guarantee executed for a sum of Rs.30/- crores was impossible of performance under Section 56 of the Contract Act since the net worth of the guarantor / plaintiff was not even Rs.5/- crores. It was also contended that the plaintiff had executed guarantees with respect to liabilities of different borrowers and if ever there was a claim on the guarantees, they would be called at the same time. It was contended that there was no possibility of the plaintiff ever being able to make payment of the amount guaranteed. It was also contended that this fact of impossibility of performance was known to the lenders. It was contended that therefore, the guarantee was impossible of performance even though executed.

5. The plaintiff had valued the suit for purposes of Court Fees and Jurisdiction at Rs.25,01,000/- for the relief of declaration and at Rs.1,000/- for the relief of permanent injunction and had paid Court fees of Rs.29,535/- under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Actfor the relief of declaration and a Court Fee of Rs.75/- under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, for the relief of permanent injunctions. The total value of the suit was stated tobe Rs.25,02,000/- and the total Court fee paid was Rs.29,610/-.

6. It is to be mentioned that this suit was initially presented before the Original Side of the High Court and taken on file as C.S.No. 694 of 2011. Subsequently owing to change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court, and re-numbered as O.S.No. 4639 of 2020 on the file of the 15^th Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. On establishment of the Commercial Court, it was transferred to the Additional Commercial Court at Chennai and further renumbered as COS No. 1956 of 2022.

7. The Commercial Court took up the issue of valuation of the suit and examined whether the Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the issues raised. With respect to the valuation of the suit, it had been noted that though the value of the document for which the declaration was sought was Rs.30/- crores, the suit had been valued at Rs.25,01,000/-. The Court fees had been paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. It was observed that the value of the document was Rs.30/- crores and that therefore the Court fee should have been paid under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, sin