Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
R.C. Sundaravalli vs T.D. Shakila on 21 August, 2001
10.In R.C.Sundaravalli's case, this Court finding on the facts of the said
case that the question relating to Court Fee was not raised before the first
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 01:25:51 pm )
CRP.No.1335 of 2025
hearing of the suit, proceeded to non suit the defendant.
S.N.S.Sukumaran vs C.Thangamuthu on 27 September, 2012
14.The Trial Court has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in S.N.S Sukumaran Vs. C.Thangamuthu, reported in 2012 (5) CTC 705, which
was a case which had no application to the facts of the present case. The said
decision did not decide the issue of maintainability of an objection by way of an
application supported by an affidavit, questioning the valuation of the Court Fee
paid. For all the above reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Trial
Court since the Trial Court has not gone into the merits of the objection.
Considering the fact that the respondent has not chosen to appear in this
revision, while setting aside the order, I direct the Trial Court to re-hear
I.A.No.3 of 2024 and decide the objection of the revision petitioner regarding
incorrect valuation and insufficient Court Fee as well as pecuniary jurisdiction,
on merits and in accordance with law. If the Trial Court comes to the finding
that the valuation is improper and insufficient Court Fee is paid on the plaint
and that the Trial Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit,
subject to such findings arrived at by the Trial court, the Trial Court may return
the plaint to be presented before the proper Court, subject to correcting the
valuation and payment of proper Court Fee.
Minor R.Boopathy vs Ranjeetham on 20 September, 2019
11.In Minor R.Boopathy's case, the defendant had questioned the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court by way of filing a memo and this Court held
that the memo would be sufficient for the Court to take up the issue raised on
jurisdiction.
S. Raju Gramani vs Srinivasa Gramani on 14 October, 1957
The reasons assigned by the Trial
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 01:25:51 pm )
CRP.No.1335 of 2025
Court are directly in conflict with the ratio laid down in Raju Gramani's case.
1