Dismissed

S.N.Navaneethan v. R.Mylsamy

Madras HC2 Mar 2020CRP/1464/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was dismissed against the trial court's rejection of a plaint due to improper court fee. The petitioner sought to amend the valuation from Section 27(c) to 25(d), but the High Court held that since the subject matter valued at 1.2 crores required filing under Section 40, the amendment petition was futile.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to amend the valuation provision from Sec. 27(c) to 25(d) of the Act was rejected; no amendment allowed.

S.N.Navaneethan Vs R.Mylsamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.1464 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON 29.06.2018 DELIVERED ON 02.03.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.1464 of 2017
& C.M.P.Nos.6805 and 9219 of 2017
S.N.Navaneethan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Mylsamy
2.Panneerselvam
3.K.Arumugam
4.K.G.Somasundaram
5.M/s. The Lakshmi Mills Company Limited
rep. By its Managing Director
1100, Avinashi Road, Pappanaickanpalayam
Coimbatore-641 037

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 28.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2016 in O.S.No.358/2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.G.P.Kothandaraman for R1 to 4 Mr.A.Saravanan for R5

¶9

1/4

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

C.R.P.(PD).No.1464 of 2017

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Civil Revision petition is directed against the rejection of

¶14

application filed under Order VI R.17 r/w. 151 C.P.C to amend the plaint.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he filed the above suit for declaration of an assignment deed dated 17.12.2005 as null and void and to set aside the same. It is submitted by him that the suit was valued u/s. 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') at Rs.1000/- and a sum of Rs.75.50p is paid as Court fee. According to the plaintiff, it is wrongly typed as u/s. 27(c) of the Act instead of Sec.25(d) of the Act. Therefore, he seeks amendment of the valuation column.

¶16

According to the respondents, they filed the petition for

¶17

rejection of plaint under Or.VII R.11 C.P.C on the ground that the suit should have been filed u/s. 40 of the Act as the value of the subject matter of the suit is 1.2 crores and appropriate Court fee should have been paid.

¶18

2/4

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

C.R.P.(PD).No.1464 of 2017

¶21

The Trial Court has allowed the application for rejection of

¶22

plaint on the ground that the suit should have been valued u/s. 40 of the Act

¶23

and directed payment of deficit court fees within one month. This Court also in CRP (PD) No.1463 of 2017 filed along with the revision confirmed the

¶24

finding of trial Court. Hence, the present petition for amendment to amend

¶25

the provision under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, from Section 27(c) to Section 25(d) will not serve any purpose. Since a clear finding is given that the suit should be valued u/s.40 of the Act, if the petitioner wants to make an amendment, the valuation column should be amended as u/s. 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965. The Trial Court rightly held as such. Therefore, I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

02.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶27

Speaking / Non-speaking order KPR/TK

¶28

3/4

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

C.R.P.(PD).No.1464 of 2017

M.GOVINDARAJ, J.

kpr/tk

The V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶35

Pre-Delivery order
in
C.R.P.(PD).No.1464 of 2017
02.03.2020

¶36

4/4

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.N.Navaneethan v. R.Mylsamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N.Navaneethan v. R.Mylsamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.L.Kaaviya Vs the Chairman, Tneb Office

A.S.Jainulabudeen, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Vaishnavi Vs Sheshadri @ Shekahar

S.N.Navaneethan Vs R.Mylsamy

General Insurance Back ward Class Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

General Insurance Back ward Class Vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd.