Thomas P. Joseph, J.Exhibits P4 and P6 orders passed by the learned Munsiff, Changanacherry in O.S. No. 344 of 2010 is under challenge at the instance of petitioner/plaintiff. Petitioner sued the respondent for a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. According to the petitioner, respondent removed lateral support the suit property was enjoying and hence respondent is liable to restore that lateral support. Petitioner prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondent from removing earth from the collapsed portion of Item No. 2 and for a mandatory injunction to direct respondent restore lateral support for Item No. 1. Alternatively, it was prayed that in case the respondent fails to comply with the decree for mandatory injunction, petitioner may be allowed to provide lateral support and realise its expenses from the respondent. Petitioner paid court fee u/s 27(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short the Act) valuing the reliefs at Rs. 500/- each.

2. Respondents resisted the suit on various grounds. While so, after evidence was recorded, learned Munsiff passed Exhibit P4, order suo motu on 20-12-2012 that petitioner seeks to recover cost of construction of a granite wall from the respondent on his default to construct the same, cost of construction as per evidence would come to Rs. 1,99,00,000/- and in the circumstance, petitioner, for the purpose of jurisdiction, has to specify the amount which is sought to be recovered.

3. Petitioner filed I.A. No. 87 of 2013 for review of the said order. That resulted in Exhibit P6, order. Learned Munsiff reiterated the stand in Exhibit P4, order.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that Exhibits P4 and P6 orders are illegal and liable to be set aside. It is contended that for a decree for mandatory injunction of this nature, petitioner was liable to pay court fee only u/s 27(c) of the Act as valued in the plaint. I have heard the learned counsel for respondent as well.

5. It appears that learned Munsiff was under a wrong impression that the suit is for recovery of cost of construction of the granite wall and hence petitioner is liable to value the suit in accordance with the cost of construction. I have gone through Exhibit P1, plaint and find that the suit is for restoration of lateral support by a decree for mandatory injunction (and for prohibitory injunction) though alternatively, petitioner claimed that in case respondent fails to comply with the decree for mandatory injunction, he may be allowed to provide lateral support and realise its expenses from the respondent. That alternative relief cannot convert the suit into one for recovery of cost of construction of granite wall. The suit continues to be one for prohibitory injunction and for mandatory injunction (to provide lateral support for plaint schedule item No. 1). Relief of mandatory injunction which petitioner has prayed for is to be valued u/s 27(c) of the Act. Petitioner has valued that relief at Rs. 500/-. That is perfectly correct. Learned Munsiff was not correct in passing Exhibit P4 order. The mistake ought to have been corrected as prayed for in I.A. No. 87 of 2013.

Resultantly, this original petition is allowed as under:

(1) Exhibit P6, order dated 08-02-2013 on I.A. No. 87 of 2013 in O.S. No. 344 of 2010 of Munsiffs Court, Changanacherry is set aside.

(2) I.A. No. 87 of 2013 will stand allowed.

(3) Consequently Exhibit P4, order will stand reviewed and recalled.