Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2661 (MAD)

Shrilekha Shriram v. D. Linghusamy

2021-10-01

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 21.03.2017 made in unnumbered I.A. in I.A.No.10118 of 2009 in O.S.No.5822 of 2008 passed by the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby direct the learned Judge to return the plaint for presenting the same before the Original Side of this Court with the requisite court fee prescribed under the High Court Fee Rules for the value adopted vide check slip No.1320/XXVI/N.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in unnumbered I.A. in I.A.No.10118 of 2009 in O.S.No.5822 of 2008. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, seeking the relief of redemption of A-Schedule suit property mortgaged with the first defendant and for other reliefs. The first defendant filed I.A.No.10118 of 2009 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, to reject the plaint for want of jurisdiction. 3. On considering the rival submissions, the learned XVI Assistant Judge, ordered the issuance of check slip and directed to return the plaint, with a direction to represent the plaint before proper forum with proper Court Fee, within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Then, the petitioner filed an application for return of the plaint in unnumbered I.A. in I.A.No.10118 of 2009 in O.S.No.5822 of 2008. That petition was returned on 21.03.2017 stating that “when this court perused the Order dated 12.08.2015 passed in I.A.No.10118 of 2009 and in O.S.No.5822 of 2008, it has been clearly mentioned as, the Check Slip report is upheld and the deficit court fee of Rs.3,37,423.00, to be paid before this court, plaint to be amended and then the plaint to be returned to the petitioner/plaintiff for representation before the proper court having jurisdiction with proper court fee and for the payment of deficit court fee one month time has been granted from the date of receipt of the said order”. It was also found that the petition was filed the petition in time and there is no delay. It was also found that the petition was filed the petition in time and there is no delay. However, since the deficit Court Fee of Rs.3,37,423/- was not paid, the learned XVI Assistant Judge observed that, the Court can not act against its own order passed on merits and gave liberty to the petitioner to prefer suitable revision or appeal. Against the said order, this petition is preferred. 4. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when the matter was pending before the learned XVI Assistant Judge, pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was Rs.25,00,000/- and for the suits worth more than Rs.25,00,000/-, the jurisdiction vests with this Court. Now that, the pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court, is enhanced and the cases upto the value of Rs.1,00,00,000/- can be filed before the City Civil Court. Therefore, he prayed that, she may be permitted to represent the plaint again for paying the deficit Court Fee and proceed further with this case. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that, there was an inordinate delay and there is no explanation by the petitioner for the delay caused in representing the petition. Though the petition was filed in time, it was represented only on 06.10.2016. This delay will not save the limitation and therefore, he is entitled to raise the issues of non-payment of deficit Court Fee and the delay in paying the Court Fee. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that, the petitioner has to pay the Court Fee, prevailing at the time of return of plaint and she cannot seek advantage of the amendments made in 2017. This Court is of the considered view that, in view of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, it is now clear that, the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. All these issues raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are left open to the learned XVI Assistant Judge to adjudicate by framing appropriate issue. Therefore, the learned XVI Assistant Judge, is directed to receive the Court Fee and proceed further with the suit, on merits and in accordance with law. All these issues raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are left open to the learned XVI Assistant Judge to adjudicate by framing appropriate issue. Therefore, the learned XVI Assistant Judge, is directed to receive the Court Fee and proceed further with the suit, on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner is given four (4) weeks time from today, for payment of deficit Court Fee, failing payment, the learned XVI Assistant Judge, is directed to reject the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. It is reiterated that. Notwithstanding the payment of deficit Court Fee, the respondents are given liberty to raise the issues with regard to the deficit Court Fee paid and the limitation aspect in paying the Court Fee before the Court. 7. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.