CRP/1116/2024 of D.SRINIVASAN Vs DHANAPAL on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in Ejectment Suit No.2 of 2018 by the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, came to be dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. In the case in hand, the respondents are plaintiffs, who have filed the ejectment suit before the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, [for brevity ‘the Act’] seeking for a direction to the petitioner/defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property.

4. The petitioner, who is the defendant, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable before the Small Causes Court since the value of the property is more than Rs.1 crore. The Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground that there is no proof to show that the value of the property is more than Rs.1 crore. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the suit is not barred by Section 15(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

5. In the case in hand, the Tribunal will have jurisdiction under Section 15(1) of the Act only if the value of the property is Rs.2,000/-. In the case in hand, the property in question is a first floor premises at Triplicane measuring an extent of 300 sq.ft. The respondents/plaintiffs are seeking for the relief of possession. For the said relief, the Court fee has to be paid by taking into consideration the market value of the property. Obviously, the market value of the suit property will not be Rs.1,000/- as contended by the respondents/plaintiffs. Curiously, the Court fee has been paid under Section 27

(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which will have no application to the present case. The Tribunal failed to consider this crucial aspect and has proceeded to dismiss the application. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from perversity warranting interference of this Court and the same is hereby set aside.

6. There shall be a direction to the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai, to return the plaint to the respondents/plaintiffs and the respondents/plaintiffs shall properly value the property and present the plaint before the City Civil Court within the time stipulated by the Court below. This Court has not touched upon the merits of the case and it is left open to both parties to raise all the grounds before the concerned Court where the suit is tried and the same will be dealt with on merits.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The III Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition No.1116 of 2024