Revision Petition challenging rejection of plaint alleged to be undervalued. Held that rejection for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is incorrect; court must return plaint to superior forum.
Order passed in I.A.No.144 of 2010 set aside; trial court directed to return plaint for presentation before appropriate forum.
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.
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
3.Indrajothi ...Petitioners / Respondents / Plaintiffs Vs.
9.Balaji ...Respondents (Respondent Nos.4 to 9 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent vide Court Order dated 30.03.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.11600 of 2023 in C.R.P.(MD).No.979 of 2015)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2010 in O.S.No.34 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.F.X.Eugene For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.R.Satish For R-4 to R-9 : No Appearance R-1 : Died
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
O R D E R
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction with an alternative prayer for partition, is the revision petitioners.
before the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, for the reliefs as stated supra.
Application in I.A.No.144 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. on the ground that the suit first item has not been properly valued and if it is properly valued, the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, will not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The plaintiffs have filed a counter affidavit contending that the allegation of under valuation cannot be a reason for rejection of the plaint and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the said application. The trial Court, after considering the valuation of the suit property in another suit, it came to the conclusion that the suit first item of property has been undervalued by the plaintiffs. It further found
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
that, in case, if it is valued properly, it would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court. Basing on the said observations, the trial Court proceeded to reject the plaint. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
the suit property has been undervalued and lesser Court fee has been paid. Therefore, it is clear that the only ground on which the plaint is rejected is on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
allowed. No costs.
14.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No tsg
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
To
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
tsg
CRP.(MD).No.979 of 2015 (NPD)
14.08.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a trial court can reject a plaint for cause of action when the objection is solely due to under-specification of value and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Whether the trial court should have returned the plaint for presentation before the proper forum having jurisdiction instead of rejecting it.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vanaja
Jeyabharathi
Indrajothi
T.Narayanasamy
N.Thirupathi Venkatachalapathi
N.Sanjeevirajan
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
