IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 400 of 2009() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2009 IN IA 789/2009 IN OS.2961/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/5TH DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCY RAPHAEL, W/O. VALLUPPARA RAPHAEL, PERINGAVU DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3 / RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 & 6: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHEENA, W/O. SATHEESAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, CHEROOR DESOM, VILVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. CHANDRESH, S/O. POYYARA MAMAN @ UNNICHEKKAN, CHEROOR DESOM DO........DO...... 3. HAREESH, S/O. POYYARA MAMAN @ UNNICHEKKAN DO.......DO........ 4. KOUSALIA, W/O. POYYARA MAMAN @ UNNICHEKKAN DO....DO.... 5. RAMESH, S/O. POYYARA MAMAN @ UNNICHEKKAN DO...DO... 6. SHEEBA, W/O. CHULLIKKATTIL RAMAN, VILVATTAM DESOM DO.....DO.... 7. GANESH, S/O. POYYARA MAMAN @ UNNICHEKKAN CHEROOR DESOM DO...DO... 8. SECRETARY, REP. BY VILVATTAM, SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KURICHIKARA P.O. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 400 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1950/2009 IN C.R.P. NO.400/2009 DISMISSED 28/07/2009. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.400 OF 2009 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Revision is filed by the 5th defendant in O.S.No.2961/2007 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thrissur against the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing his application for determination of the valuation and court fee payable on the suit. Suit is one for partition declaring that a decree passed in a previous suit was not binding on the plaintiffs. Respondents 1 to 3 in the revision are the plaintiffs before the court below. After the entire evidence was recorded in the case, the revision petitioner/5th defendant moved an application for determination of the valuation and court fee contending that she has raised disputes over the same in her written statement. The learned Munsiff, after considering the merit of the petition in the light of the objections raised by the plaintiff and also hearing the counsel on both sides, dismissed that CRP.400/09 2 petition with costs. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision contending that the order suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. 3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner at length and perusing the order impugned in the revision, I find there is no impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned Munsiff dismissing the application moved by the revision petitioner. If at all any dispute is raised regarding the valuation of the suit or sufficiency of the court fee by any of the defendants, then that question has to be resolved as a preliminary issue before entering into an adjudication on the merits of the suit, as mandated under Section 12 (2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Whether it is permissible to have such an enquiry after the entire evidence CRP.400/09 3 recorded has been considered in We-Build Pvt.Ltd. v. C.Kamaleswaran (1981 KLT 773) by a Division Bench of this Court, and it has been held that after the suit has entered the stage of recording of evidence affecting the defendant on the merits claimed, the court cannot take up such question relating to the valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the court fee. The order passed by the learned Munsiff is perfectly valid, and revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp