IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22077 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.141/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PAULY, AGED 47, S/O. LATE KUNJI CHERIYA, MARANKODU DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOSE, AGED 59, S/O. LATE KALAN KUNJUCHERIA, MARAMKODU DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. GEORGE, AGED 55, S/O. LATE KALAN KUNJUCHERIA, MARAMKODU DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. DEVASSYKKUTTY, AGED 50, S/O.LATE KALAN KUNJUCHERIA MARAMKODU DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22077 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants in O.S.No.141 of 2007, on the file of Munsiff Court, Chalakkudy. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of plaint A, B, C and D schedule properties. When the defendants raised a contention that the plaint does not disclose the value of the plaint schedule property and court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, learned Munsiff appointed a Commission. Commissioner submitted Ext.P3 report valuing the building at Rs.5,32,350/= and annual income of the property at Rs.7650/=. Petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.641 of 2008, an application under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. Under Ext.P6 order, the petition was dismissed on the ground that as per the report of the Commissioner, the market value of the plaint schedule property exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, and, therefore, learned Munsiff has no jurisdiction to W.P.(C) No.22077/2008 2 consider the application for amendment. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The learned counsel argued that even though Commissioner submitted a report, the report was not posted for objections and the court did not specifically found that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and did not pass an order, as provided under Rule 10 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure returning the plaint, and in such circumstances, learned Munsiff was not justified in passing Ext.P6 order as if court has no jurisdiction. 4. There is force in the submission. Even if based on the report submitted by the Commissioner, court is to find that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it is mandatory for the court to pass orders as provided under Rule 10 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure. But no such order was passed. In such circumstances, learned Munsiff is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as provided under Rule 10 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure, after W.P.(C) No.22077/2008 3 giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections to the report submitted by the Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.