Madras High Court
Subramaniam vs Vidya @ Palaniammal @ Vidhya ... on 18 August, 2021
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
and CMP.No.14856 of 2018
1. Subramaniam
2. Natarajan ...Petitioners
Vs
1. Vidya @ Palaniammal @ Vidhya Selvam
2. Vadivelu
3. Sampoornam ..Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated
27.04.2018 passed in I.A.No.169 of 2018 in O.S.No.149 of 2017 on the
file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode
For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
For Respondents
for R1 : Ms.Deepika Murali
for RR2 & 3 : Notice not ready
ORDER
CRP.No.2408 of 2018 is directed against the fair and final
order dated 27.04.2018, passed in I.A.No.169 of 2018 in O.S.No.149 of
2017 by the I Additional District Judge, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/ 5
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.149 of
2017 and the first respondent herein instituted the suit for declaration and
for recovery of possession and for consequential injunction. Though the
suit was originally filed before the Sub Court, Erode on 28.01.2008,
while deciding the preliminary issue, the learned Sub Judge returned the
plaint for proper presentation. It appears that thereafter, the plaint was
presented before the District Court, Erode on 05.09.2017 by paying
Court fee under the Tamil Nadu Court Fee amended Act of 6 of 2017.
The present petition was filed contending that the suit has not been
properly valued and Court fee paid is not sufficient.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that under the old Court Fee
Act, the plaintiff was liable to pay Court fee at the rate of 7.5%, but
Court fee was paid only at 3%. The learned Judge dismissed the
application. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
4. Heard, Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Ms.Deepika Murali, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/ 5
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
5. In the case on hand, indisputably the suit was originally filed
before the Sub Court for declaration and permanent injunction and the
plaint was returned for want of jurisdiction. The first respondent/plaintiff
presented the suit before the District Court on 05.09.2017. Though the
suit was originally filed on 28.01.2008, the first respondent/plaintiff
paid Court fee as per the Tamil Nadu Court Fee Amended Act at the
rate of 3% treating the suit as fresh one. Admittedly, the new Act came
into force on 01.03.2017.
6. In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of this Court
in CRP.(MD).No.2421 of 2018, dated 20.02.2019. The relevant portion
of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"13. The arguments advanced by the petitioners that when
the said suit was returned on the point of jurisdiction and
when the amendment petition was also filed along with the
suit plaint, it has to be taken as suit for continues cause of
auction and the Court fee has to be paid as on the date of
filing of the suit, was very much rejected by the Trial
Court.
14. On perusal of the proceedings regarding the
amendment and also valuation fixed by the Amin, the suit
was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/ 5
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
concerned Court amounts to a fresh suit and the Court fee
is also paid according to the date of filing of the suit.
Hence, the trial Court has considered the relevant points
that whether the suit is a fresh one or continuous process
and after returning the same, it has been considered
properly. In view of the above, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial
Court."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also
the view taken in the order above referred, I find no merit in the Civil
Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The I Additional District Judge,
Erode
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/ 5
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J
pvs
CRP (PD).No.2408 of 2018
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/ 5
