IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15604 of 2009(O)
1. DHANANJAYAN DESIKAN, AGED 50,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.UNNI, AGED ABOUT 48, S/O.DAMODARAN,
... Respondent
2. SUMA RAVEENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 45,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
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