IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27111 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------- OS.2644/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. KISHOR KUMAR, S/O PANDIYATH SEKHARAN, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE, PUTHUR, THRISSUR. 2. LEELA RAMAKRISHNAN, W/O VADERIYATTIL RAMAKRISHNAN, ANJOOR VILLAGE, PUTTEKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ----------------------- 1. MANOJKUMAR, S/O VADUKKUNCHERY KAMALAMMA, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. SAJEEVE, S/O PERUMBIL THOPPIL SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, ANJOOR VILLAGE, PUTTKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR. 3. RAJESH, S/O PATTIPPARA RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE, PUTHUR, THRISSUR. 4. HARISREE OFFSET PRINTERS, BLDG. NO.11/259, KAIPPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY, MANAGING PARTNER, SAJEEVE, S/O PARUMBIL THOPPIL SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, ANJOOR VILLAGE, PUTTKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR. 5. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR, REP. BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R5 SRI.SAJI SANKARAN NAIR FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27111/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT DT. 25.8.03 IN OS.2644/03 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31.7.07 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR IN OS. 2644/03. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 27111 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents the defendants in O.S. 2644 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thrissur. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 order passed by learned Munsiff directing petitioners to pay Court fee after proper valuation, finding that valuation of the claim for declaration at Rs.1000/- and payment of Court fee on that basis is not sustainable. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and fifth respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that petitioners are not liable to discharge the liability of the partnership firm after they retired from the firm and suit was instituted seeking a decree for declaration and injunction. It was argued that when petitioners have retired from the firm seven years earlier to the institution of the suit, they are not aware of the liability of the firm after retirement and therefore they cannot quantify the liability of the firm and therefore payment of Court fee under sub clause (ii) of WPC27111/07 2 clause (d) of Section 25 of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is perfectly correct and Ext.P2 order is to be quashed. 4. On hearing learned counsel and going through Ext.P2 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Section 25 provides the Court fee payable in a suit for declaration. Under clause (d), in a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, in cases where subject-matter of suit is capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property, and where the subject-matter of suit is not capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought for is valued in the plaint or on Rs.1000/-, whichever is higher. The argument of the petitioner is that as the total liability of the partnership firm cannot be quantified as it is not known to the petitioners, they cannot value relief as provided under sub clause (i) of Section 25(d) of the Act and payment of Court fee valuing the relief at Rs.1000/- is legal and correct. I cannot agree with the submission. The liability to the fifth respondent was there even when petitioners were partners of the firm. The revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for realization of the amount due to the fifth respondent. In such circumstances, WPC27111/07 3 petitioners cannot contend that they are not aware of the liability of the firm to the fifth respondent. If that be so, valuation of the relief claimed in the suit cannot be less than the liability of the firm to the fifth respondent. Learned Munsiff rightly found that petitioner has to pay Court fee after proper valuation of the relief. As the liability of the fifth respondent is ascertainable, petitioner is bound to value the relief for that amount and pay Court fee as directed by the learned Munsiff. Petitioner is granted one month’s time to comply with the order. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-