Madhav Das Tandan vs Pratima Mairisha

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J

This revision has been filed by the revisioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Court of the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 53-A/2022, titled “Smt. Pratima Mairisha vs. Madhav Das Tandan and Others,” whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the applicant and Defendant No. 04 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant prefers the present petition. Certified copies of the order sheets dated 21.02.2024 to 11.03.2024 (including the impugned order) are filed herewith.

Facts of the case :- The Respondent No. 01/Plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 53-A/2022 seeking declaration of title, partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction in respect of diverted land bearing Sheet No. 31, Plot No. 10/1, admeasuring 4,393 sq. ft., situated near BSNL Tower, Main Road, Jodhapur Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), on which a shopping complex known as “Tandan Complex” stands constructed; the applicant and other defendants filed their written statements and specifically averred that the suit property is valued at Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) and that the Plaintiff failed to properly value the suit and affix the requisite court fees in accordance with law, including the valuation reflected in the registered Gift Deed dated 04.11.2022; during the pendency of the suit, the applicant/Defendant No. 01 and Defendant No. 04 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of insufficient court fees, to which the Plaintiff filed reply denying the allegations; however, the learned Trial Court, without adequately appreciating the applicant’s contentions or the statutory provisions governing rejection of plaint, dismissed the application in a perfunctory one-line order, aggrieving the applicant and giving rise to the present revision.

Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the material available on record, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the mandate of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the Trial Court ought to have adjudicated the application strictly in accordance with law but instead rejected it in a cursory one-line order; that the Plaintiff neither properly valued the suit nor affixed the requisite court fees commensurate with the valuation of the suit property, thereby attracting the consequences prescribed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; and that, in view of the material on record, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, without prejudice to the right of the revisioner to raise additional grounds at the time of motion or final hearing.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

The primary question for consideration before this Court is whether, on the basis of the pleadings in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the suit can be rejected.

The law is well settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint and not the defence raised by the defendants. Whether the valuation adopted by the Plaintiff is correct, proper, or inadequate is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact, which can be adjudicated only upon evidence, unless the plaint on its face reveals deliberate undervaluation.

In the present case, a perusal of the plaint does not prima facie indicate any patent undervaluation or deliberate suppression that would justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold. The Plaintiff has assigned reasons for the valuation adopted, and any dispute regarding correctness of valuation or adequacy of court fee can very well be examined by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage under Section 11 of the Court Fees Act or by directing enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(c), if required.

The contention of the revisioner that the valuation mentioned in a Gift Deed dated 04.11.2022 should govern the court fee payable in the present suit is misconceived. The valuation in a private conveyance executed between parties cannot automatically bind the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration, partition, or possession. What is relevant is the nature of relief sought and the valuation provisions applicable thereto, not the market value asserted by the defendants.

The order of the Trial Court, though brief, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity, or patent perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. A mere non-elaborate order does not become illegal if the conclusion arrived at is otherwise supported by settled law. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is legally sound and based on settled jurisprudence. There is no merit in the contention that the suit is barred on the face of the plaint. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and decide all issues, including the question of res judicata, on merits after framing of issues and in accordance with law.