HIRAMANI DEVI Vs. SANJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IT transpires that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the shop in question. An application for temporary injunction was also filed, which was considered and the trial court issued an ex parte injunction dated 16th April, 2004 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the disputed property. The notices were issued to defendant-petitioner No. 1, who appeared and filed an objection under Order VII, Rule 11 alleging that the suit was undervalued, and consequently, the plaint should be rejected. IT was alleged that the Munsarim had given a wrong report with regard to the sufficiency of the court-fee.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint would be rejected if the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, failed to do so. It clearly provides that if an objection with regard to undervaluation is taken by the defendant and the Court finds that the suit is undervalued, it cannot reject the plaint straightway, but permit the plaintiff to rectify the defect and only upon its failure to do so that the Court would proceed to reject the plaint. Similarly, Section 6 (5) of the Court Fees Act, as applicable in the State of U. P., provides as under : "6 (5) In case the deficiency in court-fee is made good within the time allowed by the Court, the date of the institution of the suit or appeal shall be deemed to be the date on which the suit was filed or the appeal presented."