HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 560 OF 2010 Friday, the Nineteenth day of February, Two Thousand and Ten Between I.Anantham Petitioner AND V.Yadagiri Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 560 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 30.11.2009 in I.A. No. 75 of 2009 in O.S. 1403 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller-cum-XVII Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein, defendant in the above suit, under Order XIV (2) read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. to decide the issue relating to valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the suit. The Respondent herein filed the above suit seeking specific performance of agreement of lease dated 3.8.2005, which according to the petitioner herein, it is not an agreement of lease. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the respondent had valued the suit under Sec.39 and 40(e) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (the Act) on the premise of rental value at Rs.72,000/-, but in fact, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. It is his further case that the respondent had filed the suit for enforcement of the Agreement of Lease dated 3.8.2005, clauses of 6,7 and 8 of which mandate that a premium of Rs.3,50,000/- is payable and, therefore, the suit ought to have been valued at Rs.4,22,000/- under Sec. 39(c) of the Act, but not Rs.72,000/- and, therefore, the defendant sought to decide the issue framed in terms of the order in IA No. 43 of 2009 as to the valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court as a preliminary issue. The case of the Respondent - plaintiff is that IA No. 620 of 2007 earlier filed the petitioner - defendant contending that the suit is under valued and an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is not included in the calculation of court fee, was dismissed by the court below and the appeal in CMA No. 54 of 2007 preferred there against was also dismissed by order dated 2.5.2008, holding that the suit was properly valued. Aggrieved by the said order, CRP No. 2672 of 2008 filed by the petitioner – defendant was disposed of by order dated 28.1.2009, pursuant to which an issue in respect of the court fee was framed. The court below observing that the petitioner who had never been ready to proceed with the case was adopting delaying tactics on one pretext or the other and in view of the decision of this court in Moola Vijaya Bhaskar s/o M.V. Rangaiah Vs. Moola S.S.Ravi Prakash s/o M.V.Rangaiah and others (AIR 2009 A.P. 150) wherein it is observed that the issue relating to sufficiency of court fee is not merely an issue of law and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue and that all the issues framed have to be decided at once, has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. The fact of the petitioner herein earlier filing IA No. 620 of 2007 assailing valuation of the suit and its dismissal by the trial court and on appeal being affirmed by the appellate court in CMA No. 54 of 2007 and on revision by the petitioner herein in CRP No. 2672 of 2008, pursuant to which an issue in respect of court fee was framed, is not in dispute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the observation of the court below that the petitioner is resorting to drag on the matter on one pretext of the other, cannot be totally ruled out. Having gone through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the observations made by the court below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Inasmuch as the parties to the suit are senior citizens, aged above 70 years, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari February 19, 2010 MAS