IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17032 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.231/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SATHEEDEVI, AGED 65 , W/O LATE VISWANATHAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, YAKKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PRASANNA, W/O RAJAN, VALLATTU VEEDU, MUNDAM PALAM, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH, S/O HARIDAS, VALLATTU VEEDU, MUNDAM PALM, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17032 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. The relief sought for in the plaint, as it stands, is to declare that the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of first respondent is vitiated by misrepresentation, and, therefore, not valid and also for a declaration that all the actions of the first respondent pursuant to the power of attorney so executed is null and void. Learned Sub Judge, as per order, dated 21.5.2008, directed petitioner to pay court fee on the valuation under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act. Prayer 'A' was valued at Rs.50,500/= and prayer 'B' was valued at Rs.50,500/= under Section 25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as the relief sought for in the suit now stands, finding of the learned Sub Judge is not correct, as petitioner has not sought a decree to set aside the sale deeds. True, in the body of the plaint W.P.(C) No.17032/2008 2 petitioner sought to set aside the documents executed by the first respondent, on the strength of the power of attorney, challenged in the suit , in the relief column, no decree is sought to set aside those documents. As found by the learned Sub Judge, if the relief sought for in the suit is to be taken as one for setting aside the sale deeds, then court fee is necessarily to be paid, as provided under Section 40 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. If the relief is only to be treated as for declaration that the sale deeds are not valid, Court Fee is to be paid, as provided under sub-section (i) of Section 25 (d) of the Court Fees Act. In such circumstances, I do not find it necessary to set aside the order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the contentions raised in the plaint, petitioner has to file an application for amendment of the plaint modifying the relief sought for. In the nature of the contentions raised in the plaint, an amendment of the relief is definitely necessary, as found by the learned Sub Judge. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to amend the plaint and to pay the necessary court fee payable on such pleading. It is made clear that the fact that a time limit is fixed by this Court will not W.P.(C) No.17032/2008 3 prevent the court from granting amendment, as it is necessary for an appropriate adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. It is made clear that the actual court fee payable by the plaintiff is to be decided by the trial court afresh, taking into consideration the relief sought for in the plaint, in the light of the amendment of the pleading. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.