IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2621 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO. 400/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER ------------------- P.M. JEEVANANDAN, S/O. ANANDAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'GEETHALAYAM', CHETTANCOON, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SOMAVALLY AMMA NAIR, W/O. VENUGOPAL, AGED 60 YEARS, NURSING INSTRUCTER, RESIDING AT KUMBAKOT HOME CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOKKADU WARD KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, QUILON DISTRICT-691 001 2. MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, THALASSERI-670 101. 3. H.D.F.C. BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE LAWFUL ATTORNEY U.SAJITH KUMAR, ASSISTANT MANAGER(LEGAL) THALASSERI-670 101. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.2621/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/2/2011 OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2621 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT This Original Petition arises from Ext.P3, order whereby learned Munsiff, Thalassery (in O.S.No.400 of 2008) directed petitioner to value the suit under Section 25(d)(i) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, “the Act”) since the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation but, the suit is valued at `1,000/-. Petitioner sued for a declaration that Will dated 19.08.2003 is genuine and for a mandatory injunction to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay the amount which according to him is due to the petitioner on account of the bequest in the Will. Contesting respondents resisted the suit raising a plea that the suit is not properly valued. That objection has been upheld by learned Munsiff vide Ext.P6, order. Since Ext.P3, order was not complied learned Munsiff has rejected the plaint on 16.03.2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 2. The rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree and is appealable. It is open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of Ext.P3, order in the said appeal in view of Section 105 of the Code. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to challenge rejection of the plaint in appeal. OP(C) No.2621/2011 2 Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge rejection of plaint by way of appeal and in that appeal challenge the correctness of Ext.P3, order, this Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks