- (1.)THIS civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in I.A.No,723 of 2007 in O.S.No,271 of 2005.)Animadverting upon the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in I.A.No,723 of 2007 in O.S.No,271 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.
(2.)HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the revision petitioners as stood exposited from the record could be portrayed thus:The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No,271 of 2005 before the Sub Court seeking the following reliefs: "- declaring the petitioner/plaintiff as an indigent person- for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of "C" Schedule property which forms the eastern half of I item of "B" schedule property and item 2 of "B" schedule properties, i.e.5 items of lands described in the "B" Schedule.- for directing the respondents/defendant 9 and 10 to vacate and give vacant possession of "C" schedule property to the petitioner/plaintiff.- for mesne profits in respect of "C" Schedule property, which is valued at Rs.3,000/- p.m from the date of the suit till actual delivery of possession by the respondents/ defendants 9 and 10 to the petitioner/plaintiff.- directing the 12th respondent to pay the rents in respect of 2nd item of "B" Schedule properties to the petitioner/plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m from the date of filing this petition/plaint."

The revision petitioners/defendants 9 and 10 herein filed the written statement opposing the suit and also raising objection concerning the valuation of the suit. The court framed issues and posted the matter for trial. On the plaintiffs' side PW1 was examined. During cross-examination the counsel for the revision petitioners put a question to PW1 relating to the valuation of the suit property. Whereupon, the witness candidly and categorically came forward with an answer that even one of the suit properties would fetch more than Rs.25 lakhs. The grievance of the revision petitioners/defendants 9 and 10 is that the suit was filed informa pauperis and at that time, the suit property was valued only in a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and odd, which was far below the actual value that should have been adopted for valuing the suit. Whereupon the revision petitioners filed I.A.No,723 of 2007 invoking Section 11(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act under Order 14 Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to take up the issue relating to valuation and payment of Court fee as a preliminary issue and decide it. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such dismissal of the interim application, the revision petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition on various grounds.

(3.)THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 9 and 1, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the Sub Court is having no jurisdiction to proceed with the case as Section 4 of the Pondicherry Civil Court (Amendment Act 2005) would contemplate that suits of the value of Rs.5 lakhs and below alone could be tried by the Sub Court whereas the present suit admittedly, has to be valued for more than Rs.5 lakhs and in such a case, the Sub Court is having no jurisdiction the Court fee issue also should have been taken as a preliminary issue by virtue of Section 11 of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, but the lower Court failed to do so.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners by placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2002 (2) CTC 513 (V.R. Gopalakrishnan vs. Andiammal), would argue that the Court fee issue should have been taken as a preliminary issue but the lower Court has not taken this aspect into consideration. The relevant portion is extracted here under for ready reference:"12. According to Order-14 Rule-2, the defendant can raise an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction has to be understood both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. If the schedule mentioned property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the court then certainly that court will have no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Similarly, if the value of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, then again that court will have no jurisdiction. In the course of considering a preliminary issue as to whether there is a statutory bar to the suit, Court can record such evidence as parties desire to let in only in relation to that issue/aspect (1985 Mad. 300 D.B. MITSUBISHI FRANCE vs. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED.)13. There is also a provision in the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 viz., Section-12 which lays down that the Court shall decide on the materials and allegations available in the plaint, the proper court fee payable thereon. Section 12(2) of the Act reads thus:-"Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, not later, plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the Court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit. "According to the above provision, all questions arising as such pleas shall be heard and hence no discretion is vested with the Court. If on the basis of the materials and allegations contained in the plaint, the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court can call upon the plaintiff to amend the plaint and also pay the deficit court fee. If the plaintiff fails to do that, the Court shall reject the plaint and pass appropriate orders. Once the Court decides that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the court fee paid is not sufficient, the Court has no option except to fix a date and call upon the plaintiff to comply the defect viz., by amending the plaint and also by paying necessary court fee. It has to be noticed that in this Section, the word "shall" has been employed as against the word "may" that occurs in Order-14 Rule-2 CPC. Of course, it is the settled legal position that the question of valuation must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits and further all the material allegations contained in the plaint should be construed and taken as a whole. It is the substance and not the form matters (vide 1980 SC 691 {Neelavathi v. N.Natarajan}& AIR 1987 SC 2085 {Tara Devi vs. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj} 14. There appears to be some conflict between the provisions in C.P.C. (ie) Order 14 Rule 2 when read with Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act with reference to deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Suppose in a given case, the defendant comes forward with an application requesting the court to decide an issue relating to valuation of the suit property or the payment of court fee as a preliminary issue, the Court may applying the provision Order 14 Rule 2, decide to consider along with other issues and not as a preliminary issue. Then the defendant may file an application to consider the issue as per the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, then the Court will have no discretion and it has to consider the same. The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is a substantial law while C.P.C is a procedural law. The substantial law will prevail over the procedural code and consequently, it follows whenever the defendant files an application, requesting the court to decide the issue of valuation of the suit property or the payment of court fee and all questions arising on such pleas as a preliminary issue, the Court has to necessarily consider as per the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Not in all cases where the defendant has disputed in the written statement, the valuation of the suit property or contended that the suit has not been properly valued, the court has to consider it as a preliminary issue. Only where the defendant makes an application, the Court is bound to consider under Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act."The learned counsel also relied on one other decision of this Court reported in 2003 (4) CTC 268 (Solaiammal (died) and another vs. Rajarathinam and five others) and an excerpt from it would run thus:"31. Equal amount of duty is cast upon the Advocates and the litigants in properly valuing their suits to augment the Revenue of the State by paying proper Court Fee. The Advocates' litigant publics are to address themselves that the essential part of calculation of Court Fee is to maintain broad and general correlation between the fee collected and the expenses of the services on the other.32. In the case in hand plaintiff Solaiammal is said to be aged about 70 years. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the aged woman like the plaintiff cannot be harassed to pay the heavy Court fee and further dragging her to the Sub Court. In the realm of proper valuation of the plaint and payment of correct Court fee, absolutely there is no place in Judicial Generosity. Correct valuation of the plaint and the payment of correct Court fee for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be sacrificed showing judicial generosity."