IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18958 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.2849/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- HAMEED, AGED 56, S/O.HASSAN, PODIPARAKKAL HOUSE, AMBADI LANE, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, TRUSTEE SAL SABEEL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUNDUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. HABEEB RAHMAN, S/O.P.T.MUHAMMEDALI, PANIKAVEETTIL, THIRUNELLI, P.O.KUNDALIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.SALIM, S/O.P.T.KHADAR, KARIYIL HOUSE, CHETTUVA, KUNDALIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD. 2. A.S.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.LATE AATUPARAMBATH SAIDALI, P.O.VADAKUMURI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.T.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O.P.T.MUHAMMEDALI, KARIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNDALIYOOR, CHAVAKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. FOUSIYA ABDUL GAFOOR, D/O.K.K.KOCHAHAMMED, KAROTHUKUDI HOUSE,P.O.PERUMBAVOOR. 5. P.T.ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, PANIKAVEETTIL, THIRUNELLI, CHETTUVA, KUNDALIYOOR. 6. BINU GAFOOR SAIDALI, S/O.A.S.ABDUL GAFOOR, AATUPARAMBATH HOUSE, VADAKUMURY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. 7. A.M.NOUSHAD, S/O.K.K.MUHAMMED, KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUVAI, P.O.PAZHANJI, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and may be pleased to set aside the same. ii) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant. 2. Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S 2849/2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Trissur. First respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents, co-defendants with the petitioner in the above suit. Suit is one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Subject matter of the W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 2 suit relates to a trust and so much so petitioner valued the suit property under Section 28 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act hereinafter referred to as the C.F Act, which was challenged by the petitioner/third defendant. Petitioner also moved an application for consideration of that question as a preliminary issue. The court below after hearing both sides dismissed that application, and the propriety and correctness of that order is impeached invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the impugned order and other materials produced in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 3 it is dispensed with. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner has not filed any written statement so far. The question of consideration of valuation arise only after settling of issues under order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure. The various stages under which the court can examine the correctness of valuation and sufficiency of court fee are covered by the provisions of the Court Fees Act. On institution of the suit or proceeding a preliminary finding is made by the court whether the court fee paid and the valuation shown is correct, and that preliminary finding is subject to review, as provided under Section 12(2) of the C.F Act and the following Sub sections of that Section and also under Section 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 12(2) of the C.F Act enables the defendant after filing of his written statement to challenge the court fee paid on the plaint and then, necessarily, it has to be examined with W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 4 reference to the Valuation shown in the plaint. The two are interconnected though they are distinct and different from one another. So much so the challenge now raised by the petitioner regarding the valuation of the suit has to be gone into only after filing of his written statement. I make it clear that none of the observations made by the court below in the impugned order shall have any bearing in the enquiry on the question of valuation and also court fee if raised in the appropriate manner by the defendant, as provided by law. The writ petition is closed subject to the above observations. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv