Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4804 (MAD)

A. Karthikeyan v. R. Swaminathan

2010-11-01

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. These two revisions are filed against the order passed in I.A.No.55 of 2010 in O.S.No.405 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur. 2. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 is the plaintiff in the suit and he filed the suit for declaration that he is entitled to half share in the suit property and for injunction. He valued the suit at Rs.25,000/- towards his share and according to the defendants 1 and 2, the properties worth about more than Rs.17,00,000/- and therefore, the Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.55 of 2010 under order VII Rule 10(1) of Civil Procedure Code for returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. In that application, the lower Court has found that the property was not properly valued and the plaintiff has to value the property on the basis of the market value and also held that the market value on the date of suit be not less than Rs.8,68,677/- and directed the plaintiff to take steps to amend the valuation of the suit property and pay proper court fee thereon. This order is challenged by the plaintiff in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 and also by the defendants 1 and 2 in C.R.P.No.2565 of 2010. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under order VII Rule 10, such direction cannot be given by this Court and when any application is filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (b), the Court can reject the plaint, after the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is not properly valued and therefore, the Court should not have passed such direction, directing the plaintiff to value the suit properly. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 who are the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.2565 of 2010 submitted that the Court having come to the conclusion that the value of the suit property is not less than 8,68,677/- ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before proper Court and ought not have directed the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit property. 5. 5. According to me, the lower Court considered the claims of both plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs half share will be not less than Rs.8,68,677/-. Therefore, the lower Court directed the plaintiff to value the suit property as per Section 25(b) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act and it has also been made clear that after valuing the suit property as per the direction given by this Court, if the valuation is found to be in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, further order will be passed for presentation of the plaint before the proper Court. 6. According to me, the lower Court is of the opinion that the valuation of the property may be above Rs.8,68,677/- and unless the correct market value is stated the Court to which the plaint has to be represented cannot be stated. For that purpose, direction was given to the plaintiff to value the suit property as per Section 25(b) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act and I do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. Further under Order VII, Rule 11 (b), a plaint can be rejected only after the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaint is under valued and a direction is given to the plaintiff to value the suit properly and if the plaintiff fails to value the suit properly. In this case that stage has not reached and now the lower Court has directed the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit property and if the plaintiff fails to amend the valuation of the suit property as per the direction, then it is open to the defendants to invoke the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(b). 7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 that the lower Court should not have issued such direction in an application under Order VII, Rule 10 cannot be accepted. 7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 that the lower Court should not have issued such direction in an application under Order VII, Rule 10 cannot be accepted. It is seen from Order VII, Rule 10(1), the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted and as per order VII, Rule 10 (a) after the appearance of the defendants, if the Court is of the opinion that the plaint should be returned, it shall before doing so intimates in its decision to the plaintiff and after giving such intimate it the plaintiff may inform the Court that he proposes to present the plaint to some other Court after return and also prayed for fixing the time for appearance of the parties before the another Court. Therefore, it is seen from Order VII, Rule 10 and 10(A), the Court has got power to return the plaint at any stage of the Court for being presented before the Court. In this case, the Court came to the conclusion that the suit is not properly valued and therefore directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly and after seeing the valuation of the suit property, the Court will decide to which Court the plaint has to be returned for proper presentation. 8. As regards the contention of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2565 of 2010 is concerned, that the lower Court ought to have returned the plaint at this stage without ascertaining the valuation of the suit property, as stated supra, the lower court has not given any finding about the valuation of the suit property and only directed the plaintiff to value the suit property as per Section 25 (b) of the Act. It is also made clear in the order that if the valuation is found to be in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint may be returned for representation before the Court having appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the court has reserved its right to return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court after ascertaining the valuation of the property and hence I do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower Court . 9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Therefore, the court has reserved its right to return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court after ascertaining the valuation of the property and hence I do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower Court . 9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The plaintiff is directed to comply with the direction given by the lower Court and value the suit property as directed by the lower Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to file their objection within two weeks thereafter and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the application regarding the valuation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the counter filed by the defendants 1 and 2. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.