IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18958 of 2009(O)
1. HAMEED, AGED 56,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HABEEB RAHMAN, S/O.P.T.MUHAMMEDALI,
... Respondent
2. A.S.ABDUL GAFOOR,
3. P.T.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN,
4. FOUSIYA ABDUL GAFOOR,
5. P.T.ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI,
6. BINU GAFOOR SAIDALI,
7. A.M.NOUSHAD, S/O.K.K.MUHAMMED,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs.
i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and
may be pleased to set aside the same.
ii) To pass any such or further orders as the
petitioner may seek and this Hon’ble Court
deem fit to grant.
2. Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S
2849/2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Trissur.
First respondent is the plaintiff and the other
respondents, co-defendants with the petitioner in
the above suit. Suit is one for injunction, both
prohibitory and mandatory. Subject matter of the
W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 2
suit relates to a trust and so much so petitioner
valued the suit property under Section 28 of the
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act hereinafter
referred to as the C.F Act, which was challenged by
the petitioner/third defendant. Petitioner also
moved an application for consideration of that
question as a preliminary issue. The court below
after hearing both sides dismissed that
application, and the propriety and correctness of
that order is impeached invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances
presented with reference to the impugned order and
other materials produced in the writ petition, I
find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and
W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 3
it is dispensed with. The impugned order discloses
that the petitioner has not filed any written
statement so far. The question of consideration of
valuation arise only after settling of issues under
order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure. The various
stages under which the court can examine the
correctness of valuation and sufficiency of court
fee are covered by the provisions of the Court
Fees Act. On institution of the suit or proceeding
a preliminary finding is made by the court whether
the court fee paid and the valuation shown is
correct, and that preliminary finding is subject to
review, as provided under Section 12(2) of the
C.F Act and the following Sub sections of that
Section and also under Section 18 and 19 of the
Act. Section 12(2) of the C.F Act enables the
defendant after filing of his written statement to
challenge the court fee paid on the plaint and
then, necessarily, it has to be examined with
W.P.(C).No. 18958 OF 2009 4
reference to the Valuation shown in the plaint.
The two are interconnected though they are
distinct and different from one another. So much
so the challenge now raised by the petitioner
regarding the valuation of the suit has to be gone
into only after filing of his written statement. I
make it clear that none of the observations made by
the court below in the impugned order shall have
any bearing in the enquiry on the question of
valuation and also court fee if raised in the
appropriate manner by the defendant, as provided by
law. The writ petition is closed subject to the
above observations.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv