High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.5830 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARC.R.P.No.5830 of 2025and C.M.P.No.28929 of 20251. M.Shanmugamuthu2. M.Subramaniyam... PetitionersVs.1 . M.Udayakumar2 . Kavitha3 . M.Paramasivam ... RespondentsPRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to number the application filed by the petitioner in un-numbered I.A.SR No.17553 of 2024 in O.S.No.4982 of 2023 and take on file and to hear and decide the same as preliminary issue on merits by allowing the civil revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab for Mr.K.V.Subramaniam Associatez. - - - - -1 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 2025ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking direction to the Trial Court to number the application filed by the petitioner in un-numbered I.A.SR No.17553 of 2024 in O.S.No.4982 of 2023 and to decide the same as preliminary issue on merits.2. The respondents 1 and 2, who are husband and daughter of the petitioners’ deceased sister (Pushpalatha) filed a suit for partition, claiming 1/4th share in the suit property. They also sought for declaration declaring that the release deed executed by mother of the petitioners, namely Meenakshi Sundaram in favour of 2nd petitioner is null and void. The respondents 1 and 2 also sought for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from disturbing their possession over the B schedule Property.3. The prayer for declaration in the plaint was notionally valued under Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and a sum of Rs.30/- was paid. The relief of partition was valued under Section 37(2) of the said Act and a fixed court fee of Rs.500/- was paid. The relief of permanent injunction was valued under Section 27(c) of the said Act and a sum of Rs.30/- was paid.2 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 20254. The petitioners herein filed a written statement and resisted the suit on various grounds. In the written statement filed by the petitioners, they disputed the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the instant application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to value the suit claim under Section 37(4) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, as the plaintiffs sought for declaration regarding invalidity of the release deed. The said application was returned by the Trial Court by raising the following objections.i. Since the plaintiff is not a party to the document, court fees need not paid under Section 40 of the Act.ii. Plaintiffs claimed their share by birth over the suit property. Hence, plaintiffs are to be considered as joint possession. Hence, Court Fees under Section 37(2) paid is proper.iii. Death of father on 19.05.2008 is not a cause of action for a partition. It can be considered only for applicability of the Act.iv. The date, on the share of the plaintiff are denied is the actual cause of action.Hence this petition is not maintainable. The petitioners re-presented the said application on 12.04.2024 by offering their explanations. 3 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 20255. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application re-presented by the petitioners has not been taken for consideration and the same has not been numbered. In the meantime, the petitioners preferred a transfer petition in Tr.OP No.62 of 2025 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The said transfer petition was dismissed on 01.09.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a memo before the Trial Court stating that they intend to file a revision. In the meantime, on the side of the plaintiffs, PW1 was examined in chief and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked and the matter was posted for cross examination of PW1. A perusal of the adjudication sheet filed along with the typed set of papers would indicate that the suit was referred to the IV Adhoc Court for cross examination of PW1. The suit was posted for the presence of counsel on both sides. The adjudication of the suit dated 19.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 reads as follows. 19.09.2025: Both side counsels present. Tr.OP filed by 3rd defendant in Tr.O.P.No.62/2025 was dismissed on 01.09.2025, which was filed by the plaintiff side along with memo and recorded. Defendant side filed memo stating that they intent to prefer CRP before Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the transfer order and the memo is also recorded. PW1 chief recorded on proof affidavit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked. For cross of PW1 or filing stay order by the defendant side adjourned to 09.10.2025.09.10.2025: PW1 and both side counsels present. The suit is referred to Adhoc Court-IV for cross of PW1 and further proceedings. Both parties along with respective counsels are directed to appear before 4 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 2025the Adhoc Court-IV on 05.11.2025. The office is directed to send the case records to the Adhoc Court-IV.Therefore, it is clear that though the petition under Section 12(2) was re-presented by the petitioners as early as on 12.04.2024, the petitioners never insisted the Trial Court for hearing of the said petition. They filed Tr.OP No.62/2025 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and thereafter filed a memo before the Trial Court stating that they intend to file a revision challenging the dismissal of the Transfer petition. The petitioners never insisted for hearing the petition filed under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1955. Now, after the matter is referred to Adhoc Court for the purpose of recording cross examination of PW1, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition before this court seeking to number the petition filed under Section 12(2) of the said Act.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court, dated 27.09.2012 in S.N.S.Sukumaran Vs. C.Thangamuthu reported in (2012) 5 CTC 705 , vehemently contended that the Trial Court should have numbered the application filed by the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and passed orders on merits.5 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 20257. It is settled law that whenever an application is filed by the defendant, raising objection with regard to the valuation of the plaint, the same shall be considered before recording evidence. In the case on hand, the instant application was filed by the petitioners as early as on 05.03.2024 and the same was returned on 12.03.2024. Thereafter, the said petition was re-presented on 12.04.2024. Since the petition under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was filed by the petitioners well before recording of evidence, this court is inclined to issue a direction to the Trial Court to number the unnumbered I.A.SR No.17553 of 2024 in O.S.No.4982 of 2023, if it is otherwise in order and pass final orders on merits, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order after giving opportunity to the petitioners. It is made clear that if the petition in IA Sr17553of 2024, which was said to have been re-presented on 12.04.2024, has been returned by Trial Court, prior to recording of evidence, the benefit of this direction will not enure to the petitioner and trial court can proceed with main suit.8. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24-11-2025Internet: YesIndex: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoMST6 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 2025ToThe XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.7 of Page 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5830 of 2025S. SOUNTHAR, J.MSTC.R.P.No.5830 of 202524.11.2025.8 of Page 8