IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 33671 of 2007(H) -------------------------- OS.207/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ TOMY MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, ARUMBANKUDIYIL HOUSE,AMBALAPARAMBU, NADUKKANIKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BABY MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT PVT.LTD., CHOWARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. POLLY MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT PVT.LTD., CHOWARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., HYPOTHECATION DEPARTMENT, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3 ADV.SRI. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioner’s Exhibits:- Exhibit-P1:- True copy of the plaint in O.S. No.207/06 before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha Exhibit-P2:- True copy of written statement dated 7.11.06 of the 1st defendant before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Exhibit-P3:- True copy of the I.A.No.3452/07 in O.S. No.207/06 dated 6.11.07 of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Exhibit-P4:- True copy of the order dated 9.11.07 in I.A.No.3452/07 O.S.No.207/06 before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. //True copy// P.A. to Judge M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 33671 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. 207 of 2006 of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted the suit for a declaration that agreement dated 27.11.2004 is a fraudlent document created by first defendant forging the signature of the plaintiffs and it is null and void. A consequential decree for mandatory injunction for a direction to the petitioner to produce the vehicle in Court was also sought. Petitioner filed a written statement. Issues were settled by the court. Thereafter suit was posted for trial. Petitioner at that stage filed I.A.3452 of 2007, an applicatioin to frame additional issues namely, an issue whether valuation of suit is correct and court fee paid is sufficient and whether court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Under Ext.P4 order learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. It is challenged in this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and contesting defendants were heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that though decree sought for is a declaration that agreement dated WPC33671/07 2 27.11.2004 is null and void as it is a forged document, subject matter of the agreement is a vehicle which has a market value and therefore as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 25 (d) of Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, plaintiff should have valued the plaint as the value of the vehicle and if so the suit will not lie before Munsiff Court and in such circumstances learned Munsiff should have framed the additional issues as sought for and Ext.P4 order is to be quashed. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P4 order I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The contentions raised by plaintiffs in the suit was that they did not execute the document dated 27.11.2004 and the signature therein is not their signatures but forged signatures and hence the document is null and void and to declare the same. In such circumstances, as found by the Court below, there is no necessity to value the suit for the value of the vehicle. In such circumstances there is no necessity to issue additional issues as sought for. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-