IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15604 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- OS.844/2004 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DHANANJAYAN DESIKAN, AGED 50, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, RESIDING AT PATHAYAKKA HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. V. UNNI, AGED ABOUT 48, S/O.DAMODARAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUMA RAVEENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 45, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KANNANKERAN HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.15604 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing Ext.P8 order, by calling for the records leading to the same. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, compelling the court below to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law. iii) to issue such other writ or other appropriate direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.844/2004 of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. Suit was one for declaration of title and for injunction. The defendants resisted the suit claim by filing written statement in which among other WPC.15604/09 2 contentions valuation of the suit was also questioned. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the value of the properties scheduled in the plaint, and accordingly, after enquiry, he filed a report. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs filed a statement showing the valuation of each and every item in the property scheduled in the plaint. The learned Munsiff satisfied with the valuation shown by the plaintiffs and the court fee paid, overruled the objections raised by the defendant and passed Ext.P8 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order is challenged in this writ petition by the 1st defendant. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and considering the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the materials produced in the writ petition, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff holding that suit has been properly valued and the court fee as required by the Act has been paid by the plaintiff. After all, payment of court fee is a WPC.15604/09 3 matter as between the plaintiff and the Revenue, and at the most, the defendant can only show that the suit is undervalued. There are adequate provisions in the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act to recover court fee in case it is found insufficient even after passing of the decree as covered by Section 12 of that Act. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009