IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13910 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.1127/09 IN OS.141/2009 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12/1624, BRISTOW ROAD,WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682 003. REP.BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL M.V.H.MENON, BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.ANIL D. NAIR, MR.JOSON MANAVALAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, CENTRAL CIRCLE,VANAPRIYA FOREST COMPLEX, PARAVATTANI,THRISSUR-680 005. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL MR. RENJITH THAMPAN R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16802 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.13910 OF 2009 AND 16802 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT These two writ petitions arise from the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda in respect of valuation and court fee payable in a suit namely O.S 141/2009 on the file of that court. Writ petition No. 13910/2009 is filed by the plaintiff in that suit, wherein the respondents are the defendants. The other petition namely W.P.C 16802/2009 is filed by the defendants in the suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as stated in the writ petition No. 13910/2009 as petitioner and respondents, for the sake of convenience. W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner as plaintiff filed the above suit for a declaration that the order passed by the defendants cancelling the lease in its favour in respect of the schedule properties, which are described as schedules 'A' to 'C' in the plaint, having a total extent of more than 4000 acres, is null and void, and it will not affect its leasehold rights over the properties. A decree declaring the order of cancellation of the lease as null and void with consequential permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants / the State and its public officers, from resuming the plaint schedule properties under the order of cancellation order was also sought for. The defendants on entering appearance filed an application contending that the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid on the reliefs claimed is insufficient. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides passed an order that the valuation made in the plaint for the declaration sought for with respect to the W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers right of the plaintiff as lessee over the plaint schedule property and the court fee paid thereunder in the plaint is correct, but, with respect to the relief of declaration that the Government order cancelling the lease is null and void the suit has to be valued under Section 25(b) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as Court Fees Act, and since such valuation has not been made and proper court fee not paid the suit is under valued. The plaintiff was directed to amend the suit and pay the court fee accordingly. So far as the order to the extent directing the plaintiff to value the declaration sought over the cancellation order passed by the Government, in terms of the market value of the plaint schedule properties and pay court fee as under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees Act on the basis on one half of the market value of the properties, the plaintiff has filed the writ petition No. 13910 of 2009, and to the extent the order of the court below holding that for W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers establishing the right of a lessee valuation made and court fee paid by the plaintiff, under Section 43(c) of the Court Fees Act is correct, the defendants / the state have filed the other petition, W.P.C No. 16802 of 2009. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, though some arguments were advanced that the court below was competent and expowered examine the question of valuation of the suit to determine the court fee payable on the reliefs claimed even before filing of the written statement by the defendants, it was practically agreed upon that since the valuation of the suit and court fee payable have to be considered with reference to the pleadings of the parties it is more appropriate that an enquiry thereof is conducted by the court after a written statement is filed by the defendants pointing out the material particulars necessary to assist the court in determining what should be the proper valuation and W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers the court fee payable on the reliefs claimed in the suit. There is no interdiction for the court after plaint is admitted to examine the correctness of valuation or the court fee payable for the reliefs claimed before a written statement is filed by the defendants either suo motu or that question being raised by any of the defendants, but, all the same when it is not a case of under valuation or the plaint though properly valued is presented on insufficient stamp papers, as covered under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) of Code of Civil Procedure respectively, it may not be proper for the court to examine and determine disputed questions relating to valuation and court fee, even if so canvassed and urged by the defendants, before the written statement is filed in the case. More over, the provisions of the Court Fees Act as covered under section 12(2) of that Act, stipulate that the question of court fee at the instance of a defendant has to be considered with reference to the written statement by the defendant before the W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim. The sub Sections following Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act also provide at what stages a further enquiry could be held and the circumstances which may require the court to decide that question even if it has already been decided in an enquiry under Section 12(2) of Court Fees Act. So far as valuation is concerned it is quite distinct from the question of determination of the court fee payable on the reliefs claimed, though very often both are interlinked. The preliminary aspect to be borne in mind is that the determination of valuation is vital to consider the jurisdiction of the court. Section 53 of the Court Fees Act and Civil Courts Act, both have its application in the matter of consideration of a question relating to valuation of the suit. As I find that the question relating to valuation and also court fee payable on the reliefs claimed in the suit had been gone into by the court below before written statement is W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers filed by the defendants, and for an effective determination of such questions it should be examined only after the written statement is filed, as envisaged under Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act, I find, the order impugned has to be set aside and examined afresh after filing of written statement, with reference to the pleadings of the parties. I do so. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the defendants have already filed their written statement in the suit and that valuation and also court fee paid on the plaint are challenged among other contentions taken to resist the suit claim. It is further submitted that issues have not been settled in the case. The court below shall settle the issues on the pleadings of the parties and, then, consider the valuation and court fee, if raised, as a preliminary issue and pass appropriate orders, W.P.(C).No.13910 OF 2009 Page numbers untramelled by any of the observations made in its previous order. 5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petitions are closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv