IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8903 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.1770/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SR.STARLET SCARIA, AGED 55, D/O.SCARIA, CHEMPAKATHINAL, PROVISIONAL SUPERIOR, FRANCISCAN CLARIST CONGREGATION, ASSISI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR. G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) MR. K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAJESWARI, D/O.GOURIAMMA,KANDAMKAVIL, UTHRADAM VEETTIL, THRIKUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. VIJAYAKUMARAN, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, THRIKUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. BERNARD, S/O.KAIPPASSERRY JOSEPH, PERINCHERRY DESOM, AVINISSERRY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. ANTONY, S/O.KALLUKKARAN VARAPPAN, VALLISSERRY DESOM, AVINISSERRY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. VARGHESE, S/O.MANIPEEDIKA ANTHONY, VALLISSERRY DESOM, AVINISSERRY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8903 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the fourth defendant in O.S.1770 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and other respondents are the other defendants. Suit was for a declaration that document No.5941 of 2006 is a sham and nominal document and for a consequential decree for injunction. It is submitted that all the defendants have filed written statements and the issues are yet to be settled. meanwhile petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition (I.A.255 of 2009) to decide the question of correctness of the court fee paid as a preliminary issue. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the Munsiff to pass orders in Ext.P2 application. 2. Even according to the petitioner the issues in the suit are yet to be settled. If the correctness of the court fee paid on the plaint is disputed in the written statement, Munsiff has necessarily to frame an issue on the correctness of the suit W.P(c).8903/2009-O 2 valuation and court fee paid. When such an issue is framed, Munsiff has necessarily to consider whether the suit has been properly valued and whether the court fee paid is correct. In such circumstances there is no necessity to file a petition like Ext.P2. Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda is directed to frame necessary issues in the suit without delay and if an issue on court fee is framed, to pass appropriate order on that issue. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb