Smt. Vimla Bai vs Shakti Singh and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 13.02.2013 by which the application filed by the applicant under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C. has been dismissed wherein the applicant had objected to the valuation of the suit as well as the court fees paid by the respondents in C.S. No. 5-A/13 pending before the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Hoshangabad. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the value of the property is in crores whereas the respondents have wrongly valued the same at Rs. 20,000/- and on that basis the court below has determined the jurisdiction as well as court fees which is contrary to law.

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the court fee paid by the respondents is per se incorrect and is based upon the false averments made in the plaint which could not have been accepted.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order it is observed that the court has held that the valuation of the suit property has to be made on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and on that basis, has accepted the valuation made by the respondents and the court fee paid by them. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the aforesaid application of law by the court below. Prima facie, the valuation of the suit has to be made on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and in the circumstances, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this court.

The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that in case the applicant has raised the issue of improper payment of court fees etc. in the written statement the court below may, if so permissible or provided in law, deal with it in accordance with law by framing an issue in this regard. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision stands disposed of.