Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 209 (MAD)

Thavamani & Others v. Ravi

2009-01-20

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- The civil revision petitioners 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 20.07.2005 in I.A.No.22 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.22 of 2005, has among other things observed that in the main case written statement has been filed and when the matter has been pending for enquiry at that time no cross examination has been done and necessary orders were passed and at that time the present application has been filed and also that an issue has already been framed in regard to the payment of Court fee and further that in regard to the valuation necessary documents have been filed by the respondent/ plaintiff and as such, the present application is unnecessary and resultantly, dismissed the application. 3. It is seen from the grounds of the civil revision petition that a plea is taken that the order of the trial Court passed in the interlocutory application is contrary to law and that the respondent/plaintiff has underestimated the value of the property as Rs.1,40,000/-and the revision petitioners/defendants have a right to urge before the Court in regard to real value of the property and that the trial Court has not applied its mind while passing orders in I.A.No.22 of 2005 and if the valuation of the suit is not properly estimated, then the revision petitioners will suffer and therefore, the revision petitioners have prayed for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the trial Court and prays before this Court that the order of the trial Court in revision at this stage need not be interfered with by this Court. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the trial Court and prays before this Court that the order of the trial Court in revision at this stage need not be interfered with by this Court. 5. On going through the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.22 of 2005, it is quite evident that already an issue in regard to payment of Court fee has been framed by the trial Court (more so the aspect of valuation and payment of proper Court Fee requires factual enquiry) and when such being the fact situation there is no need for the revision petitioners to project the I.A.22 of 2005 in issue and in that perspective, this Court is of the considered view that the interlocutory application filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court is only a luxury besides supernumerary and not a necessity and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.22 of 2005 is affirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. It is open to the revision petitioners to let in oral or documentary evidence in regard to the issue of payment of Court fee and the trial Court shall provide opportunities to both parties in this regard to establish their case in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.