Madras High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 15 Sep 2010
- Bench
- S RAJESWARAN
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the application is dismissed as devoid of merits
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Now after the amendment to the City Civil Court Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court was raised to Rs.25,00,000/- and the registry of this Court is in the process of identifying the suits, the value of which is less than Rs.25,00,000/- and transferring…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN A.No.3226 of 2010 C.S.No.698 of 2008 ORDER : S.RAJESWARAN,J. This application has been filed to permit the applicants to amend paragraph 17 of the plaint as follows: For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the plaintiff values the suit at Rs.1,00,00,000/- being the value of the properties of the Trust and pay a fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 in the place of existing paragraph 17 For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the plaintiff values the suit at Rs.10,00,000/- being the value of the properties of the Trust and pay a fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955
This application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the paragraph 17 of the plaint. Paragraph 17 of the plaint reads as follows: For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the plaintiff values the suit at Rs.10,00,000/- being the value of the properties of the Trust and pay a fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955
According to the plaintiffs the value of the suit properties is about R.1,00,00,000/-. However, it was mistakenly typed as Rs.10,00,000/- in paragraph 17 of the plaint. This error should be rectified and therefore this application has been filed to replace Rs.1,00,00,000/- being value of the properties instead of Rs.10,00,000/- as wrongly stated in the plaint.
The second respondent/second defendant filed a counter, wherein it was stated that the suit was presented on 23.02.2004 and the suit was taken on file in the year 2008 only. Against the order passed in the interlocutory applications, appeals were filed by the second defendant and the appeals were disposed of by the Court on 17.12.2009. Even in the memorandum of grounds of appeal the value of the appeal was set out as Rs.10,00,000/- as valued in the suit. Either at that time or any time there was any doubt with regard to the valuation made by the plaintiffs. Now due to the amendment made to the City Civil Court Act, the pecuniary value of the jurisdiction of this Court was enhanced to Rs.25,00,000 and only for the purpose of keeping the suit before this Court, the above application has been filed. Therefore there is no bonafides on the part of the plaintiffs and the application is to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/second defendant. I have also gone through the documents available on record.
Admittedly the suit was filed on 16.02.2004 in Diary No.3523 of 2004 and the same was admitted on 23.07.2008 only. In paragraph 17 of the plaint, the suit was valued at Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Admittedly at that point of time, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court was Rs.10,00,000/- and above. Hence the minimum value was shown in the plaint to file a suit before this Court.
Operative part
Now after the amendment to the City Civil Court Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court was raised to Rs.25,00,000/- and the registry of this Court is in the process of identifying the suits, the value of which is less than Rs.25,00,000/- and transferring the same to the City Civil Court. Therefore to avoid such transfer of the present suit, the above application has been filed with the contention that instead of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- was wrongly typed in the plaint which cannot be accepted at all. It was also not denied by the plaintiffs that in the OSA also the value of the suit was set out as Rs.10,00,000/- and even at that time no objection was raised by the plaintiffs. In fact, at no point of time, it was realized by the plaintiffs that the suit value was Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed by now and such realization dawned upon them only after the Act was amended enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. Therefore, it is obvious that there is no bona fide in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above application. Hence, the application is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
15.09.2010 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No S.RAJESWARAN,J. Pre-delivery order in A.No.3226 of 2010 C.S.No.698 of 2008
15.09.2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the application is dismissed as devoid of merits
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 6 r. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 15 Sep 2010. The bench was S RAJESWARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.