VAKEELA HASAN Vs. ALIMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision. Plaintifffs - opposite parties have filed Original suit no.559 of 2008 against defendant - applicant for several reliefs including the relief of declaration, for declaring sale deed dated 27.3.2008 executed by defendant no.1 Smt. Vakeela Hassan in favour of defendant no.2 Smt. Vashila as void. THIS revision has been filed by defendant no.1 the executant of the sale deed. Without filing written statement, defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint on the ground that insufficient court fee had been paid (only a court fee of Rs.200/- has been paid upon the plaint for the relief of declaration). Court below/Civil Judge, Meerut through order dated 19.2.2009 rejected the application of the defendant-applicant holding that the question of under valuation would be decided only after framing of the issues if in the written statement this question is raised and issue is framed thereupon. Order-7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is quoted below: O. VII Rule 11. Rejection of plaint The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where 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, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate; [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9]; [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] The court below held that under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) C.P.C. plaint could be rejected if relief was found to be under valued or plaint was found to be written on insufficient stamp paper and inspite of direction by the court to remove the said defect, the plaintiff failed to do so. In my opinion view of the court below is perfectly correct. Unless issue is framed and court records a finding regarding insufficiency of stamp and grants time to the plaintiff to supply the stamp and thereafter plaintiff fails to supply the deficit stamp only then stage to apply Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) C.P.C. will arrive. The application filed by the defendant was premature hence rightly rejected Learned counsel for the applicant has cited a Division Bench authority of this Court reported in R.K.Dhandhania vs. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 2005 (3) A.W.C. 2751. In the said authority after framing issues question of valuation had been decided. In the instant case such stage has not yet arrived. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the revision hence it is dismissed.