IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.792 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.Dr.S.S.Subha 2.P.Natesan 3.G.Arunkumar 4.P.K.Murugeesan 5.V.P.Natesan 6.Tmt.Shanthi Minsaram 7.S.Vijayalakshmi Kanagaraj, 8.V.Sathya Prakash .. Petitioners. Versus Kalaimagal Kalvi Arakattalai, Rep. By its Secretary T.P.Duraisamy, Vadakku Thottam, Belukurichi Village & Post, Namakkal Taluk & District. .. Respondents. PRAYER: Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 19.1.2010, passed in Memo in O.S.No.130 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Bhiman for M/s.Sampath Kumar Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Karthikeyan O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 19.1.2010, passed in the memo, in O.S.No.130 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. 2. It has been stated that a memo had been filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008. The memo had been filed, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, praying that the trial Court may specify, in clear terms, the doubts entertained by the Court, in the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, to enable the petitioners to clarify the same. 3. The interlocutory application, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, had been filed by the petitioners praying that the trial Court may be pleased to order the return of the plaint for presentation in the proper Court, as the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008, should have been valued at Rs.1,000/- and presented before the District Munsif Court, as per Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. 4. It has been further stated that the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.297 of 2008, for the relief of interim injunction against the defendants. The defendants had filed a counter in the said application. At that stage, the defendants had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, to order the return of the plaint for presentation in the proper Court, since, the suit had not been properly valued. 5. In the meantime, the defendants had filed a memo requesting the trial Court to pass orders, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, before conducting an enquiry, in respect of I.A.No.297 of 2008. The plaintiff had stated that the memo in question had been filed by the defendants, who are the petitioners in the present civil revision petition, at the stage when the arguments had been completed in the interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.297, 332 and 333 of 2008. It had also been stated that the memo had been filed by the petitioners only with the intention of dragging on the proceedings and therefore, it is liable to be rejected. 6. On a perusal of the records, the trial Court had found that the defendants had not raised their objections when I.A.No.297 of 2008 had been taken up for hearing and when certain documents had been marked. The trial Court had also found that the memo had been filed with a mala fide intention. It had also been found that a number of interlocutory applications had been filed, including I.A.Nos.332 and 333 of 2008. However, the memo had been filed only when the matter had been part-heard and after a period of one year and one month from the date of the filing of I.A.No.332 of 2008. Accordingly, the trial Court had rejected the memo, filed on 4.12.2009. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the preliminary issue raised in the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008, has to be decided, at first, even before the main suit is taken up for trial, especially, when the said issue goes to the root of the matter. It had been stated that the application, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, has to be decided before the interlocutory application filed, in I.A.No.237 of 2008, is disposed of. It has been stated that if I.A.No.237 of 2008 is allowed, the plaint would have to be returned and as such, the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, would not have the jurisdiction to hear the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision, reported in Sree Madura Enterprises V. C.Thangavel (2003(3) CTC 27). 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had stated that the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008, had been filed on 13.10.2008, along with an injunction application, in I.A.No.297 of 2008. The Principal District Court, Namakkal, was inclined to grant interim injunction, till 13.11.2008, as a prima facie case has been made out and the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendants had entered their appearance, on 13.11.2008, through their counsel, they had filed two applications, in I.A.No.332 of 2008, to return the plaint, under Order VII Rule 10, and an injunction application, in I.A.No.333 of 2008, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 9. Another interlocutory application had been filed, in I.A.No.2006 of 2009, under Order III Rule 1, to recognize the power agent, who was appearing on behalf of the first defendant. In such circumstances, the trial Court had intended to hear all the applications, together, to dispose of the same at an early date. In such circumstances, the petitioners in the present civil revision petition had filed the memo, dated 8.1.2010, to hear and dispose of I.A.No.332 of 2008, before hearing I.A.No.297 of 2008. By the impugned order, dated 19.1.2010, the trial Court had rejected the memo filed by the petitioners stating that it is devoid of merits. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, in the present civil revision petition stating that I.A.No.332 of 2008, has to be heard and disposed of by the trial Court before it takes up for hearing I.A.No.237 of 2008, cannot be countenanced. The petitioners have not been in a position to show that the trial Court should take up for hearing and disposal, I.A.No.332 of 2008, before I.A.No.237 of 2008 is heard and disposed of. 11. Though the issue regarding the rejection of the plaint, based on the grounds raised by the petitioners in I.A.No.332 of 2008, goes to the root of the matter, relating to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioners have not been in a position to show that no other interlocutory applications should be taken up before deciding the issue of jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court would also depend on the pecuniary aspect. 12. It cannot be said that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case to reject the plaint, at the threshold. No doubt, it is for the trial Court to decide the issue relating to its jurisdiction, in respect of the suit, in O.S.No.130 of 2008, pending on its file, as per the relevant provisions of law. However, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the memo filed by the petitioners, by the trial Court, by its order, dated 19.1.2010, cannot be held to be erroneous, in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index:Yes/No 09-03-2010 Internet:Yes/No csh To 1) The Principal District Judge, Namakkal. M.JAICHANDREN J. csh C.R.P.No.792 of 2010 09-03-2010