1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:24.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1619 of 2011 J.Jannathul Azma .. Petitioner -vs- M.Jehanghir Batcha .. Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the Principal Sub- Court, Thanjavur, dated 28.07.2011 in O.S.SR.No.7136 of 2011, when the plaint is presented before the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur. For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Subramanian ORDER Aggrieved over the return of the plaint by the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The trial Court returned the plaint for the reasons which reads as follows:- “On the other hand it also insist the plaintiff to pay the Court fee based upon a plaint as framed. Therefore as per the plaint averments the plaintiff ought to have declare her title over the property. Hence the relief column and the Court fee column as such is not maintainable in law, for want of declarative relief based upon a settlement deed and also to pay the correct payment of Court fee, plaint returned. Time two weeks.” 3. According to the plaintiff, she is not a party to the revocation deed, dated 30.06.2011, therefore, the said document is not binding on her. Further, according to the plaintiff, since she is not a party to the revocation deed, she has filed the present suit to cancel and declare the said document as null and void. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has to pay Court fee under Section 25(b) of the Court Fee Act. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff has relied upon a judgment in Siddha Construction (P) Limited, rep. by its power agent Vs. M.Shanmugam and others reported in 2006 (5) CTC 255, wherein, this Court has held that when there is a specific averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was not a party to the document, in such a case, suit for declaration that particular document is null and void could be valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. 5. The plaintiff has valued the present suit under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. Applying the principles laid down in the judgment in Siddha Construction (P) Limited, rep. by its power agent Vs. M.Shanmugam and others reported in 2006 (5) CTC 255, it is sufficient https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that the plaintiff pays Court Fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. With regard to the prayer made by the plaintiff, whether the prayer is maintainable or not can be decided on merits at the time of trial by the trial Court. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case I direct the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur to number the suit in O.S.SR.No.7136 of 2011 and decide all the issues at the time of trial. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Subramanian, Advocate SR.No.28797 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1619 of 2011 24.08.2011 ps PA/26.08.2011/2P/3C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/