Petitioner challenged an order directing amendment of property valuation for court fee. Court held residential property valued under Section 7(3). Impugned order set aside, suit restored for fresh court fee determination after hearing both parties.
Impugned order set aside; suit restored for determination of court fee under Section 7(3) after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938 OP(C).No. 1723 of 2016 (O)
O.S.138/2015 OF THE I ADDL. SUB JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S):
T.C.MATHEW, S/O.T.M.CHANDI, THENGUMPALLILVEEDU, PUNNAVELI, NEDUKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHENGANASERI TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT "THENGUMPALLILVEEDU", KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, KOWDIYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
FIROZE KHAN, S/O.ABBASS, KAVUVILA HOUSE, VAYYAKAVU, MANIKKAMMURI, PULLAMBARA VILAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SMT.S.SINDHU SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
OP(C).No. 1723 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.138 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.4123 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO.138 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO I.A.NO.4123 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO.138 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.4123 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO.138 OF 2015 OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14.06.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
O.P.(C).No.1723/2016
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2017
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.138 of 2015 on the file
of the court of the Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He has approached this court challenging an order directing the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the valuation portion of the plaint schedule property as commercial property and pay court fee in accordance with it.
sought a prayer against the defendant for specific performance in the suit.
OPC 1723/2016
-:2:-
endorsement in this original petition that he is giving up the second prayer in the suit. In that view of the matter, what survives is only the first prayer. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the court below rejected the suit for non-payment of court fees. It is to be noted that even if the suit is rejected, by the interference of this court, the suit can be restored. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of with the following directions:
The court below shall restore the suit O.S.No.138 of 2015.
The court below shall determine the court fee payable in accordance with Section 7(3) after hearing the plaintiff and the defendant.
If the court fee is liable to be paid, the plaintiff shall be given sufficient time to pay the same. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order directing the petitioner to amend valuation of the property as commercial was correct.
Whether the suit for specific performance should be restored and court fee determined under Section 7(3).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.C.MATHEW
FIROZE KHAN
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
