1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(PD)(MD) No.2390 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.Ammachiar, W/o.Subbiah Thevar 2.Swami Thevar 3.Ammachiar, W/o.Muthupandi 4.Bhagavathi 5.Shanmugakumar ..Petitioners/1 to 5 Petitioners/ 1 to 5 Defendants Vs. 1.Swarnam @ Sudha ..1st Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Murugesan .. 2nd Respondent/6th Petitioner/ 6th Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 16.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2009 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram ORDER The order dated 16.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2009 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of her share, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 1 to 5. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2011 under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 coupled with Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 praying to decide the value of the suit properties as a preliminary issue. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2011 as well as the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs of partition and separate possession and the suit properties are having more value than quoted in the plaint and under the said circumstances the Court below is not having pecuniary jurisdiction and due to that the present petition has been filed under Order XIV, Rule 2 coupled with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, but the Court below without considering the nature of the provisions mentioned in Section 12(2) of the said Act, has erroneously dismissed the present petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the same reads as follows: "Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the Court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the Court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit". 6. From a close reading of the said provisions, it is made clear to the Court that with regard to valuation of suit properties, a preliminary enquiry can be conducted before adducing evidence. In the instant case, the specific contention putforth on the side of the revision petitioners is that the suit properties have been undervalued for the purpose of filing the suit before the Court below. 7. Considering the stand taken on the side of the revision petitioners/petitioners and also considering the salient provisions of Section 12(2) of the said Act, this Court is of the view that the approach made by the Court below for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 dismissing the present petition is erroneous and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2009 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2009 is remitted to the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is directed to dispose of the petition on the basis of the relevant provisions of law and also on the basis of merit. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Second Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. +One cc to Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, Advocate, SR.No.45150 smn rl/3c – 9.1.2012 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2390 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/