AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai. He filed the suit for partition of his 1/2 share in the suit properties and for declaration that the sale deed dated 20.10.1976 is not valid. He has valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee at Rs. 15,100/- and he paid a sum of Rs. 1133/- u/s 40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for the relief of declaration and paid Rs. 750/- u/s 37(2) of the Act valuing his share at Rs. 2,00,000/-. He filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint to substitute the provision of the Court Fees Act u/s 25(d) instead of Section 40 and in the prayer portion, first prayer may be deleted and in the place, the prayer for declaration that the sale deed dated 20.10.1996 is not binding upon him and his rights to 1/2 share in the suit properties.
The amendment application is a pre-trial one. The Court below has returned the application without numbering by stating that as per the instructions of the District Judge, Sivagangai in his annual inspection notes of 2007, as mentioned in a copy of the communication issued by the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai dated 15.04.2008 to the effect that at the time of his inspection that the plaint should be filed u/s 40 of the Court Fees Act to cancel the entire portion of the sale deed and deficit Court fee has to be calculated for the market value at the time of filing of the plaint.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the above said communication is on an administrative notes which could not be considered in the place of judicial opinion and the petition may be numbered and orders be passed on merits.
His contention is acceptable. In view of this Court, the administrative remarks passed by the District Judge may not be incorrect while the petitioner files an application for amendment praying the Court to amend the plaint. With reference to the prayer for substitution, there shall be a judicial order rendering its opinion on application of mind after hearing the contention of both sides.
Having regard to the circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai is directed to take the application for amendment on file, to number it, to afford opportunity to the respondent for filing counter, hear both sides and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law.
With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs. The Registry is directed to return the petition in original filed by the petitioner before the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.