IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32431 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.481/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRAN.K.K., S/O.DAKSHAYANI, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SIJU KUMAR, S/O.K.K.CHANDRAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARGHAVI, D/O.NARAYANAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KARAPPAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. CHANDRIKA, D/O.NARAYANAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SARASWATHI, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. GIRIJA, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. SIVAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. GEETHA, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. LAL, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. ANIL, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. AMMINI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. DAKSHAYANI, D/O.KOCHURAMAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 32431 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants 2 and 3 in O. S No.481 of 2006 pending before the Munsiff Court, Aluva. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and 13th respondent is the first defendant. Suit was one for declaration and for partition. Resisting the suit claim, petitioners/defendants filed a written statement in which among other contentions they disputed the valuation of the suit and also court fee paid as insufficient and inadequate. An application was also moved by the petitioners defendants under Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act for consideration of the dispute raised with respect to the valuation and also court fee. That question was considered by the court and after hearing both sides, the plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint to correct the valuation and also to pay the adequate court fee for the reliefs claimed. Pursuant to that order, plaint was W.P.(C).No. 32431 OF 2009 Page numbers amended and court fee was also paid. The case has now been posted in the special list for trial. At that stage petitioners/defendants have moved an application contending that plaintiffs have not correctly valued the suit and the court fee paid is also insufficient. Ext.P6 is the copy of that application. The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ, direction/order to the court below to decide the question of valuation and also court fee on the basis of Ext.P6 petition filed by the petitioners before proceeding with the suit. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Whatever challenges the petitioners/defendants had against the valuation and court fee, it is seen from the submissions made and also the averments made in the writ petition, they were considered by the court earlier and orders issued thereof, and pursuant to which the plaintiff had also carried W.P.(C).No. 32431 OF 2009 Page numbers out the amendment of the plaint and corrected the valuation made thereunder. If at all the petitioners had any objection to the previous order passed by the court and the determination of the valuation and court fee paid, necessarily that order should have been challenged at the appropriate stage. Now by filing a fresh petition that too at the stage when the case came up in the list, it is not open to the petitioners to canvass the correctness of valuation and also the court fee payable under suit claim. Further more, the court fee to be paid in a suit is a matter between the State and the plaintiff and the defendant at best can point out only inadequacy in such payments. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv