NARAYANPRASAD Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-10 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 38-A/10 whereby the application filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the requisite Court fee, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession and mesne profit alleging that the respondent No. 3 is the mother of petitioner, while respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 are the brothers and sisters respectively. It was alleged that the land bearing survey Nos. 113/1, 113/2, 113/2/1, 113/2/2, 113/2/3, 173, 210/1, 256/1, 401, 402/1, 403/2, 404, 419/1 and 419/3 are the land which came into the share of Hiralal in partition, of which the land revenue is Rs. 81.80, in which petitioner is having l/6th share. It was alleged that for the purpose of Court fee, the suit is valued on the basis of which l/6th of the land revenue of Rs. 81.80 multiplied by 20, i.e., 272.06 of which the Court fee of Rs. 100/- is paid. Upon notice an application was filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, wherein it was alleged that the suit has not properly been valued and the Court fee is not accordingly paid, hence the suit be dismissed. After hearing the parties application was allowed, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.