MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL Vs. HITSHARAN GARG AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the order dated 11.10.2013 whereby the application of the petitioner/defendant preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is rejected by Court below, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction and declaration (Annexure P-2). The petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. (Annexure P-3). The respondents filed their reply and prayed for rejection of said application. By impugned order, the Court below rejected the application (Annexure P-3).

(3.) Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting the said application. He submits that the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of title as well as injunction and, therefore, they should have paid ad-valorem court fees. In addition, it is submitted that as per para 8 and 9 of the application (Annexure P-3), it is clear that plaintiffs have not paid the proper court fees and Court below has erred in rejecting the said application. In support of this contention, he relied on (A.K.Ghosh Vs. Dhruv Kumar Haryani & Anr, 2011 ILR(MP) 2141) and (M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. Vs. Vimal Pannalal, 1988 AIR(SC) 1636). By placing reliance on Section 7 (1) (d) of the Court Fees Act, it is contended that Court below has erred in rejecting the application.