MADHAV DAS TANDAN Vs. PRATIMA MAIRISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the revisioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 11/3/2024 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 dtd. 21/2/2024 to 11/3/2024 (including the impugned order) are filed herewith.

(2.) 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.3,00,00,000.00 (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 dtd. 4/11/2022; 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.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 11/3/2024 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.