IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33278 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.230/2008 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PUSHPY,W/O. ANTONY, AGED 41, RESIDING AT C.C.NO.XX/1476B, PERUMBADAPPU, KOCHI-6. BY ADVS. MR.K.L.JOSEPH, SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SEBASTIAN, S/O. EASI, AGED 37, KOLLASSERY HOUSE, KONAM, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-6. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33278 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or writ quashing Exhibit P7 order.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.230 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kochi. Challenge canvassed in the writ petition relate to valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the court fee to be paid for the reliefs claimed. In fact that question is projected before the court the second time. On a previous occasion the order passed by the trial court on the above question was challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by way of a writ petition and it was disposed vide Ext.P4 judgment with specific directions to the court below as to how the question involved has to be determined. Pursuant thereto in compliance with the direction given in Ext.P4 judgment plaintiff filed a valuation statement. The learned Munsiff negativing the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant passed Ext.P7 order holding that valuation is proper and court fee adequate. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in the W.P.(C).No.33278 of 2009 - O 2 present writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard tot he submissions made, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. Ext.P4 judgment was rendered by this Court after hearing both sides and the plaintiff was directed to take steps for valuing the suit property with reference to the tax levied by the local authority for the building comprised in the paint property. It is noticed there are two plaint items, with A schedule having an extent of three cents and B schedule having an extent of 5.5 cents comprising a building. It was with respect to plaint B schedule building the direction was given to fix valuation with reference to the tax levied by the local authority. So far as A schedule property having an extent of three cents the plaintiff was directed to file a statement valuing that property with reference to subsection (3) to Section (7) of the Courts Fees Act, which is applicable to that property. Pursuant to the directions given plaintiff had filed Ext.P5 valuation statement. Court below accepted that valuation statement and passed Ext.P7 order. After going through Ext.P5 valuation statement and Ext.P7 order W.P.(C).No.33278 of 2009 - O 3 I find that there is no reason for any interference with the conclusion formed by the court below as regards valuation and court fee payable on the suit claim. It is also submitted that the suit has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession. Taking note of that also into consideration, in the back drop that the payment of court fee is a matter between the State and the plaintiff over which the defendant has no legal right other than pointing out deficiency in payment and that alone, I do not find any merit in the challenge canvassed. Of course, in the matter of valuation of the suit, defendant can have a say, as it affects the jurisdiction of the court in entertaining the suit. Once amendment is carried out even on the present basis, with respect to the valuation and court fee that is to be carried out in the plaint, it appears, the plaint has to be returned for re- presentation before proper court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Writ petition lacks merit and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-