IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 22418 of 2006(R) -------------------------- OS.56/2002 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JOSEPH GEORGE, SON OF K.K.GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PAP TRADINGS, 36/421, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.GEEMON VARGHESE ALEX SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.GRAVS APPLIANCE PVT.LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT 109/110, PADMA TOWER 11, 22 RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 2. S.ANEEL, AREA SALES MANAGER, M/S.GRAVS APPLIANCES PVT.LTD., 29/2198-F, K.T. APARTMENTS, TAGORE NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 020. 3. BANK OF BARODA, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT KANDEVI, BARODA, HAVING BRANCH KNOWN AS ERNAKULAM NORTH BRANCH, P.B. NO.2001, BNERJI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN FOR R3 SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR FOR R3 SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI FOR R3 SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS FOR R3 SRI.V.N.SWAMINATHAN SRI.S.DILEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.56/02. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 9.6.04. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 6.6.06. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. `````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22418 of 2006 R `````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is the judgment of the learned District Judge confirming the order of the learned Munsiff that the suit which inter alia is for an injunction restraining the concerned bank from permitting invocation of the Bank Guarantee and from paying the bank guarantee amount to the beneficiary. Both the Munsiff as well as the learned District Judge referred to the proviso to Section 27(C) and took the view that the proviso to Section 27(C) applies and the suit is to be valued as per the proviso. Sri.A.V.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw my attention to the averments in the plaint as well as to the language of the proviso and argue that the legislative intendment underlying the introduction of the proviso was to ensure that court fee on the basis of at WPC.22418/06 : 2 : least half the amount sought to be recovered is paid by the debtors, who were desirous of getting injunction in respect of revenue recovery proceedings. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, where no recovery proceedings as such have been initiated and are not likely to be initiated, the proviso will not have any application. The submissions of Mr.A.V.Thomas were resisted by Mr.S.Dileep, learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. I must say that the submissions of Mr.A.V.Thomas have some attractiveness. However, in this jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, there is no warrant for interference. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is invoked as a visitorial jurisdiction in exceptional cases. I am not able to say that the impugned judgments are per se illegal; without jurisdiction or are so wholly unreasonable that they can be branded as perverse in the sense of such orders will not be passed by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. WPC.22418/06 : 3 : I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking appropriate amendments to Ext.P1. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) aks