Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs Rajendra

With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is heard and decided finally.

The revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit

No.J-65-A/2016, by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the Applicants/defendants on the ground that the suit of

Respondent No.1/plaintiff was for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of the sale-deed to be null in which Respondent

No.1/plaintiff himself was the party, therefore, ad valorem Court fee was required to be paid by the plaintiff, but the same was not paid by him and,

thus, the suit is not maintainable. Vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2017, the Trial Court has rejected the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure. Relevant paragraph of the impugned order reads as under:

“izdj.k ds voyksdu ls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk vius okn i= esa nkfDr jkgr esa LoRo dh ?kks""k.kk] LFkk;h fu""ks/kkKk ,oa izfroknh dz-1 }kjk

fu""ikfnr fodz; foys[k i= tks izfroknh dz-2 ds i= esa fu""ikfnr dh xbZ gS mls 'kwU; ?kksf""kr fd;s tkus gsrq ;g okn izLrqr fd;k gS A oknh }kjk vius okn i=

esa Li""V :i ls mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd izfroknh dz-1 }kjk okn Hkwfe xyr rjhds ls fodz; fd;k x;k gS ftl dkj.k fodz; izkjaHk ls 'kwU; gS A In considering the

question of correct valuation the court is not confined to what appears in the plaint but it is open to it to rely upon admission by the plaintiff in

interlocutory matter in the suit. The valuation of the suit made by the plaintiff and on that basis the court fees paid by the plaintiff. Hence the prima

facie valuation made by the plaintiff for the suit seems to be correctly valued in the eye of the court. Thereby the allegation imposed by the defendant

through the application for not paying the correct court fees for the suit is dismissed. oknh }kjk okn ds fy;s mfpr U;k;ky; Qhl lank; ugha fd;s tkus ls

lacaf/kr mDr izfroknh dk vkosnu fujk/kkj gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS Aâ€​

From the above-quoted paragraph of the impugned order, it is clear that the Trial Court has not discussed or given any reason regarding

maintainability of the suit. The order itself shows that it is not a reasoned order.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.11.2017 is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure afresh by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms.