Dismissed

G.Subramanian v. R.M.Meiyappan Chettiar

Madras HC13 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/716/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court hastened (at the admission stage) the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition without sending notice to the respondent. Dismissing the petitioner's challenge, the Court confirmed the court below's order fixing the jurisdictional value of the suit property based on an Advocate Commissioner's report.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the impugned order is confirmed.

G.Subramanian Vs R.M.Meiyappan Chettiar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.10.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION(MD)(PD)No.716 of 2011

¶6

G.Subramanian :Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

R.M.Meiyappan Chettiar :Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶9

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.211 of 2009 in Original Suit No.190 of 2006 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.

¶10

For Petitioner:Mr.R.Sundar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 07.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.211 of 2009 in Original Suit No.190 of 2006 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.

¶13

2.The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.190 of 2006 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein he has valued the suit property for a sum of Rs.25,000/and paid Court-fee of Rs.1,875/- under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The first defendant therein as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.211 of 2009 by way of questioning the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below and thereby prayed to decide the same as preliminary issue. The Court below has allowed the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.211 of 2009. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶14

3.Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.211 of 2009 and also the value of the property mentioned in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.190 of 2006, this Court is of the view that notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the suit property is nothing, but a vacant site and its market value has been properly valued at

¶16

¶17

Rs.25,000/- and the revision petitioner/plaintiff has properly paid Court fee and the Court below without considering the real market value of the suit property has erroneously fixed its value and ultimately passed its order and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to set aside.

¶18

5.For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the description of property mentioned in the plaint. In the description of property mentioned in the plaint, it has been clearly stated that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.1093 admeasuring 12750 sqaure feet. Further the suit property is situate in Karaikudi Town. Considering the fact that the suit property is situate in Karakudi Town, the market value mentioned in the plaint is not proper.

¶19

6.In the Court below, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed so as to assess the real market value of the suit property and he filed his report and the Court below after considering the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also after assessing the market value of the suit property properly has rightly passed the impugned order. In the light of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

7.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.211 of 2009 in Original Suit No.190 of 2006 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is confirmed. Sd/Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY /

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

To:

¶23

The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

¶24

+1CC to Mr.R.Sundar, Advocate. SR.No.35519. RP/31.10.2011/2P/3C.

¶25

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.716 of 2011 13.10.2011

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Subramanian v. R.M.Meiyappan Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subramanian v. R.M.Meiyappan Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi W/O.Gopal Vs Perumal S/O.Pasuvan

Nainar Sankar Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

M. Ponniah Vs P. Sesammal

Mohamed Ali, Vs Pappammal

G.Narayanaswami, Vs Dhanalakshmi

Sarafunisha, Vs Jeyakumar