GORELAL LODHI Vs. RATAN LAL LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants - defendants nos. 1, 3 (a), 3 (b), 5 (3) and 5 (b) have filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 11.1.2013, passed by the Xth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 122-A/2005, whereby their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, for dismissal of the suit for want of proper valuation and the court fee accordingly, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent no. 1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit against the applicants as well as against remaining respondents as stated in the cause title of the plaint, (Ann. P-1) for partition and some other reliefs with respect of the land described in plaint. Besides the cause title on perusing the prayer clause of the plaint, it is apparent that the suit has been filed by the respondent no. 1 for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in such property alongwith the prayer for declaration to declare the family arrangements, letter dated 11.6.1984, alleged Will dated 26.6.1992 and 4.5.1994 to be ab initio void and the same are not binding against him. As per para 11 of the plaint, in view of the prayer of the respondent- plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the disputed land by assessing the twenty times of land revenue Rs.1516/- of entire land, out of which accordingly to his 1/7th share in the property, the suit is valued in that ratio for the purpose of the court fees Rs.217/- and court fee was also paid accordingly in this regard. Besides this, for the purpose of the relief of above mentioned declaration the suit is separately valued on fixed valuation of Rs.1000/- and accordingly court fee of Rs.100/- is also affixed on the pliant.

(3.) In the written statement of the applicant, the defendants, the averments of the plaint regarding title and interest of the respondent no. 1 in the disputed property are denied. In further averments besides the other defence, the objection that suit has not been valued in accordance with law and the court fee has also not been paid accordingly, is also taken. In pendency of the suit on behalf of the applicants, the impugned application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC (Ann. P-3) to dismiss the suit for want of proper valuation and the court fee was filed. The averments of aforesaid IA were denied on behalf of respondent no. 1 by filing its reply, (Ann. P-4). In reply, it is stated that the suit has been filed on proper valuation and the court fee in accordance with provision of the Court Fee Act and prayer for dismissal of the application was made.