Baje Rao and Others vs Gulab Rao and Others

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, for quashment of order dated 03.08.12 (Annexure P-6) passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Multai, District Betul, in Civil Original Suit No. 59-A/2010, whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Rule 10 of the C.P.C., has been dismissed.

The petitioners counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record, argued that the respondents no. 1 to 3 herein filed the impugned suit on fixed court fees for declaring disputed deed ab-initio void with consequential relief for perpetual injunction and in response of summons of the suit, the petitioners herein filed the impugned application (Annexure P-4) under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for returning the suit to the plaintiff to file the same before the competent court having the pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter in the light of market value of the disputed property or in any case, the valuation of the property made in the alleged sale deed, in such premises he said that according to the market value or valuation of the sale deed i.e. Rs. 60,000/-, the suit is not entertainable by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II.

Keeping in view the aforesaid arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record, it is undisputed fact that in the alleged disputed sale deed, the respondents no. 1 to 3 is not a party. As such no-one respondents had execute the alleged sale deed and in this background they have filed the suit against the petitioners with a prayer for declaring such sale deed ab-initio void and consequently for issuing the perpetual injunction. It is settled proposition of law that whenever the person who is not a party of the alleged document files the suit only for declaration to declare such document ab-initio void perpetual injunction on fixed court fees then such suit remains entertainable before the court which has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit filed on such fixed valuation and/or court fees.

In such situation, the party like respondents no. 1 to 3 was neither bound to value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction according to the market value of the property or the sale consideration of the document mentioned in the alleged sale deed or to file the suit before the court having pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter in view of the market value or the sum of the consideration of the sale deed of such property.

In the aforesaid premises, I have not found any illegality, infirmity, perversity or anything against the propriety of law in the order impugned passed by the trial court. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.

However, it is made clear that in the light of the written statement of the petitioner, if any issue in this regard is/has been framed by the trial court then after recording the evidence in the matter on appreciation such issue shall be decided by such court on it''s own merits without influencing from any observations and findings made by the trial court in the order impugned or by this court in the present order. The petition is hereby dismissed with aforesaid observations and directions.