Dismissed

R.Prabakaran v. R.Janarthanan

Madras HC19 Aug 2024CRP/840/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of an application seeking rejection of a counter claim on grounds of inadequate court fee. The High Court held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not appropriate for this purpose and the proper remedy is an application under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R.Prabakaran Vs R.Janarthanan — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.4165 of 2024

¶7

R.Prabhakaran ..Petitioner/ plaintiff

¶8

Vs.

¶9

R.Janarthan ..Respondent/ Defendant

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 25.09.2023 in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.426 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional District Court Thiruvallur at Ponneri and allow the petition in I.A.No.4 of 2022.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.A.Thiyagarajan For Respondent : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam Senior Counsel for Ms.R.Ramya

¶12

Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024

¶14

for sole Respondent

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri in O.S.No.426 of 2022 dated 25.09.2023. O.S.No.426 of 2022 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶17

The plaintiff would plead that three items of the Suit property were agreed to be sold by the defendant for a sum of Rs.68,88,000/-. This was by way of a registered agreement dated 07.11.2019 registered as Document No.7695 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri.

¶18

On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement along with the counter claim. The present revision only relates to Court fee on counter claim.

¶19

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024

¶21

The defendant would plead that the contract entered into on

¶22

07.11.2019 has to be rescinded on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

¶23

On being served with the counter claim, the plaintiff took up an application on Order VII Rule 11 seeking for rejection of the counter claim. It was argued before the Trial Court that the valuation should be under Section 40 on the value of the sale consideration and not merely on the amount received on the agreement.

¶24

After a counter was filed by the defendant, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the rejection of plaint application does not deserve consideration and dismissed the same. Against which the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

Heard Mr.G.A.Thiagarajan for the Civil Revision Petitioner and

¶26

Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Ramya appearing for the

¶27

defendant.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024

¶31

The narration of the aforesaid facts would show that the application under Order VII Rule 11 seeks for rejection of the counter claim on the basis of valuation. Under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint cannot be rejected straight away on the allegation of payment of inadequate court fee. In order to reject the plaint, there must be a prior order of the Court holding that there has been undervaluation. The Court should have granted time to the parties to make good the valuation and the concerned party should have defaulted in payment of the Court fee. However, that is not the situation in the present case. The issue of court fee cannot go straightaway under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The remedy for a party in such a case is to file an application invoking Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1965. If the Court agrees with the applicant and orders payment of Court fee, and the concerned party does not make good the deficiency, only then Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC comes into operation. Furthermore, I have to add that since the Suit is pending before the IV Additional District Court, which is the Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, the issue of jurisdiction

¶32

does not arise. In such matters, the court fee is exclusively between the

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024

¶36

court and the party. Leaving it open to the Civil Revision Petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1965, if he so desires, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

19.08.2024

¶38

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶39

Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024

¶41

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶42

mka

¶43

To:

¶44

The IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, Ponneri.

¶45

C.R.P.(PD).No.840 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.4165 of 2024

¶46

19.08.2024

¶47

Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Prabakaran v. R.Janarthanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prabakaran v. R.Janarthanan

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

Sellam Vs the Assistant Engineer

A.R.Srinivas Vs Agate International Pvt. Ltd.

Rachel Pothurajulu Vs C.R.Kannikaparameshwari

Gokula Rao.N Vs Prema Kumari

Sree Ayyappa Bakthargal Saba Thiruniravur, Vs Suresh

N.Vijaya Vs S.Sadhasivam