- (1.)THIS revision petition filed under Sec.115 of the Civil Procedure Code is to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Kallakurichi in I.A.No.148 of 1997 in O.S.No.15 of 1996 dated 27.9.1999 directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay an additional court-fee of Rs.83,225.30 on the ground that the suit was under-valued.
(2.)THE petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Virdhachalam against the respondents/ defendants for declaration of the title of the suit property, for delivery of possession and to pass a decree for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made by the respondents in the suit property.
The respondents/defendants filed a written statement in the year 1990-1991. When the case was ripe for trial, the 10th defendant/respondent filed an application in I.A.No.148 of 1997 under O.14, Rule 2(b) of the Civil Procedure Code requesting the trial court to decide whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee has been paid as a preliminary issue. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs/petitioners stating that the suit property had been properly valued and proper court-fee had also been paid. After hearing the arguments of counsel for both parties, the learned Subordinate Judge ordered on 27.9.1999 directing the plaintiffs/petitioners to pay Rs.83,225.30 as court-fee, as the suit was under-valued, when the same was filed. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs/ petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition.

Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Kunchithapatham, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The only point to be decided in the civil revision petition is as to whether the question relating to the payment of court-fee could be decided as a preliminary issue by invoking O.14, Rule 2(b) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Admittedly, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners in the year 1989. Some of the defendants have filed the written statement in March, 1990 and others have filed the same in the year 1991. When the case was listed for trial, the 10th defendant alone filed an application on 7.4.1997 in I.A.No.148 of 1997 requesting the court to consider the question whether the suit property was properly valued as a preliminary issue and after deciding the same, direct the plaintiffs to pay the additional court-fee. After enquiry in this application, the trial court on considering the materials placed before the said court held that the plaintiffs would be liable to pay an additional court-fee of Rs.83,225.30. Thus, this question relating to the court-fee has been decided as a preliminary issue under O.14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. O.14, Rule 2 reads thus:

? Court to pronounce judgment on all issues: (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.? A reading of the above provision would make it clear that under the said provision only two categories of issues can be decided as preliminary issue. Those issues of law relate to, (a) the jurisdiction of the court or, (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force.

(3.)APART from those issues, no other issues can be tried as preliminary issue by the court. The issue relating to the valuation of the court-fee, which has been decided as a preliminary issue in the instant case does not fall in the category of the preliminary issues, which are permissible to be tried under the provisions of O.14, Rule 2.
In Hardwari Lal v. Pohkar Mal and others A.I.R. 1978 P. & H. 230 and in Bhupinder Kamal and another v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee A.I.R. 1980 Del. 121, it has been held that where the issue of determination of valuation of suit required probe into the market value of the property in the suit, the same need not have been tried as a preliminary issue. As indicated above, there is a mandate on the court that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court has to pronounce judgment on all the issues. The only exception to this is contained in Sub-rule (2). This sub-rule relaxes the mandate to a limited extent by conferring a discretion upon the court. The exercise of this discretion is limited to the contingency that the issue to be so tried must relate to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by a law in force.

Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial court deciding the question relating to the valuation of the court-fee, as that of preliminary issue suffers from infirmity and consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3426 of 2000 is closed.