IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 851 of 2011(O) OS.411/2007 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. PUSHPALILLI,D/O.ELSI, PUNNANINNA VARUTHATTU,SANTHA CRUIZ NIVAS, THIRUPURAM DESOM,THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. RAJENDRAN,PUNNANINNA VARUTHATTU, SANTHA CRUIZ NIVAS,THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN,PANCHAMI,VARUVILA, THIRUPURAM DESOM,THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695018. 2. MERCY,PANCHAMI, VARUVILA, THIRUPURAM DESOM,THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695018. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 851 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.411 of 2007, on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit is for mandatory injunction and declaration. The defendants raised a contention in paragraph 17 of the written statement that the suit was not valued properly and proper court fee was not paid. It was contended that the building in the plaint schedule property is worth `5 lakhs and excluding the building, the property is worth `5 lakhs. Thus, it was contended that the total value of the plaint schedule property would come to `10 lakhs. According to the defendants, the valuation of the suit should have been made at the market rate and proper court fee should have been paid. The court below, by the order dated 22.12.2010, held that the suit is maintainable and it is not shown that at the time of filing the suit, the valuation of the property exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. O.P.(C) NO.851 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 2. Thereafter the petitioners filed I.A.No.775 of 2011 (Ext.P5). In the Original Petition, it is stated that Ext.P5 was filed for reviewing the order dated 4.12.2010 and for hearing the issue regarding court fee. The order dated 4.12.2010 is not produced. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such order was passed on 4.12.2010, but it was passed on another date. The prayer in the Original Petition is to direct the court below to dispose of Ext.P5 application. 3. The court below held, as per Ext.P4 order dated 22.12.2010 that it has jurisdiction. That order is not under challenge. There is no case for the petitioners that on the basis of the valuation given in the plaint, court fee has not been paid correctly. Their case is that court fee should have been paid on a higher valuation. That contention was negatived by the order dated 22.12.2010. In Ext.P5 application, it is stated that on 4.12.2010, an order was passed that the question of court fee would be decided along with the suit. It is stated that there is no such order. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the O.P.(C) NO.851 OF 2011 :: 3 :: Constitution of India to grant the reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/