IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30206 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------------- OS.1148/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. AMMINIYAMMA @ BHARATHIYAMMA AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN MENON, THELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU.P.O, KANAYANNUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NANDANAM CHOTTANIKKARA.P.O, KUREEKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, AGED 35 YEARS, CC NO.12/333,COCHIN COLLEGE ROAD, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, COCHIN TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SANKARANKUTTY @ UNNI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARA MENON, THELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU.P.O, KANAYANNUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. R1 BY ADV.MR.M.K.SUCHEENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30206/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 27.9.07 FILED BY PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3449/07 DTD. 16.7.07 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MARADU . P3:- COPY OF THE IA. 5339/08 DTD. 2.7.08 IN OS. NO.1148/07 FILED BY PETITIONERS. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.7.08 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA. 5339/08 IN OS. 1148/07. P5:- COPY OF THE 7969/08 IN OS. 1148/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. R(a):- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH DTD. 16.7.08. R(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE (EXTRACT) NO.6580/F-2/DTD. 5.5.08. R(c):- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 92/02 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 27.12.02. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30206 of 2008 - U --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby call for the entire records leading to issue of Ext.P4 and quash the same and also may be pleased to allow Ext.P3 application as prayed for.” 2. Petitioners are the first and second defendants in O.S.No.1148 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, and, the respondent, the plaintiff. Suit was one for setting aside a sale deed and also for declaration as to the right of the plaintiff over the plaint property and injunction and other reliefs. Suit was valued at Rs.50,000/-. Court fee was paid under Section 40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for setting aside the sale deed. For the declaratory relief and injunction valuation has been made at Rs.25,000/- and court fee assessed and paid under the relevant sections applicable. Resisting the suit claim defendants filed written W.P.(C).No.30206 of 2008 - U 2 statement in which among other contentions they challenged the valuation and the court fee paid and also the entertainability of the suit before the court contending it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. An application was also moved for considering the above question. Ext.P3 is that application. In Ext.P3 petitioners/defendants sought for consideration whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Munsiff closed that application with an one line order that issue on that question had already been raised in the suit. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. The order passed by the court below indicates that there was no application of mind at all on the question raised by the defendants which needless to state has to be considered before proceeding with the trial of the suit. In case the contentions of the defendants are found sustainable and the suit is found beyond the pecuniary limits of the court then W.P.(C).No.30206 of 2008 - U 3 necessarily, the plaint has to be returned for presentation before the proper court. A question with respect to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction of a court invariably has to be decided before the other disputed issues are considered and adjudicated upon. Of course, in a case relating to territorial jurisdiction in some cases evidence may be required and it has to be relegated for consideration with other issues. When the challenge is with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court raising a contention that the valuation of the suit is much more than what is shown in the plaint and the court fee paid is inadequate it cannot be relegated for consideration to a later stage holding that an issue thereof had already been made. Setting aside Ext.P4 order the court below is directed to consider the question relating to the valuation and court fee and no doubt of its pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-