IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30206 of 2008(U)
1. AMMINIYAMMA @ BHARATHIYAMMA AGED 65 YRS,
... Petitioner
2. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, AGED 35 YEARS,
Vs
1. SANKARANKUTTY @ UNNI, AGED 57 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.SUCHEENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30206 of 2008 - U
---------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“To issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby call for
the entire records leading to issue of Ext.P4 and quash
the same and also may be pleased to allow Ext.P3
application as prayed for.”
2. Petitioners are the first and second defendants in
O.S.No.1148 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam,
and, the respondent, the plaintiff. Suit was one for setting aside
a sale deed and also for declaration as to the right of the plaintiff
over the plaint property and injunction and other reliefs. Suit
was valued at Rs.50,000/-. Court fee was paid under Section 40
of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to
as the Act, for setting aside the sale deed. For the declaratory
relief and injunction valuation has been made at Rs.25,000/- and
court fee assessed and paid under the relevant sections
applicable. Resisting the suit claim defendants filed written
W.P.(C).No.30206 of 2008 – U
2
statement in which among other contentions they challenged the
valuation and the court fee paid and also the entertainability of
the suit before the court contending it lacked pecuniary
jurisdiction. An application was also moved for considering the
above question. Ext.P3 is that application. In Ext.P3
petitioners/defendants sought for consideration whether the court
has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned
Munsiff closed that application with an one line order that issue
on that question had already been raised in the suit. Ext.P4 is
the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order
is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
4. The order passed by the court below indicates that
there was no application of mind at all on the question raised by
the defendants which needless to state has to be considered
before proceeding with the trial of the suit. In case the
contentions of the defendants are found sustainable and the suit
is found beyond the pecuniary limits of the court then
W.P.(C).No.30206 of 2008 – U
3
necessarily, the plaint has to be returned for presentation before
the proper court. A question with respect to pecuniary or
territorial jurisdiction of a court invariably has to be decided
before the other disputed issues are considered and adjudicated
upon. Of course, in a case relating to territorial jurisdiction in
some cases evidence may be required and it has to be relegated
for consideration with other issues. When the challenge is with
respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court raising a
contention that the valuation of the suit is much more than what
is shown in the plaint and the court fee paid is inadequate it
cannot be relegated for consideration to a later stage holding that
an issue thereof had already been made. Setting aside Ext.P4
order the court below is directed to consider the question relating
to the valuation and court fee and no doubt of its pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-