IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH (28TH) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5571 of 2009 Between: M/s Suryakanth Builders, rep. by its Partner M Nagaraju … Petitioner And: Thomas George & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5571 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.05.2009 in OS SR No.887 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, wherein, the said Court returned the plaint with a direction to comply with the objections. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance in pursuance of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 07.04.2004. The Court below has taken certain objections for registering plaint. The plaintiff has re-submitted the plaint answering the said objections. By impugned order dated 29.05.2009, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to comply with the objections and returned the plaint for the said purpose. In the present revision, the petitioner is aggrieved of only regarding the objections 2 and 6 and not other objections 1 and 5, which are also discussed in the impugned order. The objection No.2 relates to payment of Court fee. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property is vacant site of 233 sq. yards and the value thereof as per the valuation certificate is Rs.51,56,000/- and the Court fee is payable on 3/4th of half share pertaining to the plaintiff and the same is accordingly valued at Rs.19,33,500/- and the Court fee of Rs.21,826/- is paid. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-2nd defendant on the other hand would contend that in view of Section 39(e) and Section 29 of the Court Fee Act, the Court fee ought to have paid on 3/4th value of the schedule property of 233 sq. yards, but not on the value of ½ share of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff on the other hand would submit that as per the terms contained in MoU, the plaintiff is entitled only for half share and the possession of the entire site is delivered only for the purpose of making construction and therefore the relief in the plaint is valued properly pertaining to the half share of the plaintiff in the schedule property. 4. The objection No.6 relates to non-registration of the MoU dated 07.04.2004. The question as to whether or not the suit document requires registration becomes relevant only at the time of its admission into evidence. The question as to whether or not the suit document requires registration can therefore be considered at the appropriate later stage and the same does not come in the way of numbering the plaint. It is open to the respondents/defendants to raise their objections /contentions in their written statement pertaining to the valuation and also the Court fees and pertaining to admissibility or otherwise of the document dated 07.04.2004 on account of its non-registration. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the plaint be numbered, if it is otherwise in order, with a liberty to the respondents/defendants to raise their contentions in the written statement and the same can be considered by the trial Court at an appropriate stage during trial. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.01.2011 bss