IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 28112 of 2008(V) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1313/2008 IN OS.25/2007 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ELIKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SCARIAH CHACKO, VALAYATHIL, URULIKKUNNAM (IST PLAINTIFF). 2. THOMAS, VALAYATHIL, URULIKKUNNAM (2ND PLAINTIFF). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM (2ND DEFENDANT). R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28112/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.25/2007 IIN THE KANJIRAPPALLY MUNSIFF'S COURT. P2: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1313/2008 DTD. 25/08/2008. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1313/2008 IN O.S.NO.25/2007 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28112 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same as illegal. ii) Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No. 25 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally. Suit is one for declaration of W.P.(C).No.28112 OF 2008 Page numbers plaintiff's title over plaint schedule property item No.2 and also the timber items scheduled as item No.3 in the plaint. Plaintiff claimed title over item No.2 property as having perfected title by adverse possession. Some of the trees situate in that property were cut down by the plaintiff, and first defendant, the local authority resisted it contending that the land and timber belong to the panchayat. Suit claim was resisted by filing a written statement. The first defendant, local authority, moved two applications, one challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is not properly valued and court fee paid insufficient, and the other, to remove the case from the list. Both applications were dismissed by the court below vide Ext.P3 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.28112 OF 2008 Page numbers 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no interference with Ext.P3 order is called for. Maintainability of the suit is challenged only on the ground that valuation made in the plaint is incorrect and the court fee paid inadequate. The timber items which are scheduled as item No.3 in the plaint, during the pendency of the suit were sold in court auction and admittedly it fetched a higher price than the value for those items shown in the plaint. That appears to be the reason why the petition was filed by the first defendant contending the suit is not maintainable for the reason aforesaid. It is submitted that the first defendant in his written statement has not raised any challenge that the valuation made in the plaint is incorrect and the court fee paid inadequate. Any question as to valuation and sufficiency of court fee has to be raised in the written statement. If no such challenge is raised in the written statement, it is not open to the W.P.(C).No.28112 OF 2008 Page numbers defendants to canvass such a challenge at a later stage. Further more, even if the timber items have been sold for a higher price in public auction, it does not postulate the valuation made in the plaint is not correct. A willing purchaser may pay more price for the timber items depending up on his need for those items. It is seen that the application challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground that valuation made in the plaint as not correct and court fee paid inadequate was raised only after the case came up in the list for trial. Dismissal of the petition so moved challenging the maintainability, by the learned Munsiff, is only proper and correct. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv