PREMLATA Vs. AJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12-9-2008, passed by 9th Addl. District Judge, Indore in C.S. No. 73-A/08 whereby application filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 7 under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code whereby the Court below directed to correct the valuation of the suit as per market value of land and pay ad valorem Court fee, present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit against the respondents on 2nd July, 2008 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction alleging that petitioner is owner of a piece of plot situated at Vikas Apartment, Co-operative Housing Society, Film Colony, Indore, admeasuring 1500 Sq. Ft. which has been purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 5-10-2001. The suit was valued at Rs. 60,000/- for the purposes of declaration and Court fees of Rs. 2,000/- was paid. So far as possession is concerned, it was alleged that plot in question is admeasuring 1500 Sq. Ft therefore, the Court fees @ Rs. 10/- is paid by valuing the land @ Rs. 10/- per acre. In the suit it was prayed that decree be passed against the respondents declaring that petitioner is the owner of the suit property and petitioner be put into possession of the property. An application was filed under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code by the respondents No. 4 and 7 wherein it was alleged that requisite Court fee has not been paid. Hence, the suit be dismissed. The application was opposed by the petitioner.

(2.) After hearing the parties, learned Court below directed the petitioner to value the suit as per the market value of the suit property i.e., plot and pay ad valorem Court fee, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) This petition was dismissed vide order dated 14-5-2010 passed by Divisional Bench of this Court. Thereafter, a review petition was filed by the petitioner which was numbered as R.P. No. 169/2010 and was allowed vide order dated 17-9-2010 whereby the order dated 14-5-2010 passed in writ petition was recalled and the writ petition was re-registered on its original number, this is how the writ petition has come for hearing again.