IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1373 of 2008(L) ------------------------- OS.155/2005 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF --------------------- MODOMATTATHIL JOSE, S/O. VARKEY, AGED 55 YEARS, PADAMALA, PAYYAMBILLY AMSOM, VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANT ---------------------- VAZHAYIL VARKEY, S/O. THOMAS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, PAYYAMBILLI POST, PAYYAMBILLI AMSOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.1373 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of the learned Munsiff, Mananthavady in O.S.No.155 of 2005 whereby the court below has appointed a Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property and to verify and report whether the court fee already paid by the plaintiff is sufficient and proper. The suit originally instituted is one for injunction under Section 27(c) of the Court Fees Act. Subsequently after the filing of the written statement whereby the defendant had relied on some documents the plaintiff had chosen to amend the plaint by incorporating the prayer to declare two documents as void. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that it is only the document what is sought to be declared as void and therefore court fee need be paid under Section 25 (d)(ii) of the said Act. I am unable to agree with that contention and the subject matter involved is immovable property and the question that arise for determination is whether the court fee has to be paid or not under Section 25(a) or 25(b) of the Court Fees Act and the modality of fixing the value of the property is as per one of WP(C)1373/2008 -:2:- the provisions of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. I am not in agreement with the learned Munsiff regarding the order that the Commissioner has to verify and report whether the court fee already paid is sufficient and proper, but it is for the court to find out whether the court fee paid is correct or not What the Commissioner has to do is the property covered by the suit whether it has to be valued under Section 7(1)or 7(2) or 7(3) or 7(3A) and then apply the provisions under which the court fee has to be paid and decide the matter in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-