R. Nagarajan and Vs. R.N. Nachimuthu - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. ordera.k. rajan, j.1. this civil revision petition has been filed against the order requesting the trial court to decide the payment of court fee as a preliminary issue.2. according to the revision petitioner herein, a suit is filed for declaration and possession. in a notice given by the plaintiff in the suit, it has been stated that the value of the property is rs. 2,15,000/- but when the suit was filed, the suit was valued at rs. 10,000/- and the court of rs. 750/- has been paid. in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant in the suit, this ground has been raised stating that the property has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee. the defendant wants the matter to be decided as a preliminary issue but the learned district munsif has dismissed the petition. against the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the decision of this court reported in raju gramani v. srinivasa gramani , it is held that 'objection by defendant relating to court fee- if could be raised only in the written statement.' in the instant case, the petitioner has mentioned in the written statement that this issue should be decided as a preliminary issue.4. learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in the suit, submitted that in respect of the very same property, the defendant has filed a suit in o.s. no. 790/97 and in that suit, the defendant has valued the property only at the rate of rs. 10,000/- and has paid rs. 750/- as court fee. therefore, the defendant cannot raise the issue that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is deficient. the lower court has stated that it can be decided only after hearing both sides at the time of final hearing. therefore, the district munsif has not decided the issue of court fee and that issue is still pending.5. considering the fact that the defendant/revision petitioner has filed a suit in o.s. no. 790/97 in respect of the very same property and that he had valued the same at the rate of rs. 10,000/-, he is estopped from alleging that the value made by the plaintiff in this suit is not correct. on this ground, the revision petitioner is not entitled to raise the said issue.6. therefore, the civil revision is dismissed. no costs. consequently, c.m.p. no. 18855 of 2003 is closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.K. Rajan, J.

1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order requesting the trial Court to decide the payment of Court fee as a preliminary issue.

2. According to the revision petitioner herein, a suit is filed for declaration and possession. In a notice given by the plaintiff in the suit, it has been stated that the value of the property is Rs. 2,15,000/- but when the suit was filed, the suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/- and the Court of Rs. 750/- has been paid. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant in the suit, this ground has been raised stating that the property has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee. The defendant wants the matter to be decided as a preliminary issue but the learned District Munsif has dismissed the petition. Against the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the decision of this Court reported in Raju Gramani v. Srinivasa Gramani , it is held that 'Objection by defendant relating to Court fee- If could be raised only in the written statement.' In the instant case, the petitioner has mentioned in the written statement that this issue should be decided as a preliminary issue.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in the suit, submitted that in respect of the very same property, the defendant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 790/97 and in that suit, the defendant has valued the property only at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- and has paid Rs. 750/- as court fee. Therefore, the defendant cannot raise the issue that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is deficient. The lower Court has stated that it can be decided only after hearing both sides at the time of final hearing. Therefore, the District Munsif has not decided the issue of Court fee and that issue is still pending.

5. Considering the fact that the defendant/revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 790/97 in respect of the very same property and that he had valued the same at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-, he is estopped from alleging that the value made by the plaintiff in this suit is not correct. On this ground, the revision petitioner is not entitled to raise the said issue.

6. Therefore, the civil revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 18855 of 2003 is closed.