RAMGOPAL Vs. SATYANARAYAN CHOUKSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit challenging the order of trial court dated 5/8/2013 whereby while deciding the respondent's application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, the trial court has held that petitioner is required to pay the ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property and instead of rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC the trial court has permitted the petitioner to value the suit properly and pay the court fee. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 4/4/2014, whereby the petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to make amendment in respect of valuation and court fee has been rejected.

(2.) In brief, in a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, possession, permanent injunction and for registration of the plot, the respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC raising an objection that the suit has not been properly valued and adequate court fee has not been paid. The said application was opposed by petitioner and the same was rejected by the trial court by order dated 5/8/2013 by giving opportunity to the petitioner to amend the plaint and correct the valuation and petitioner had filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for correcting the valuation which has been rejected by the trial court by order dated 4/4/2014.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that so far as the order dated 5/8/13 deciding the respondent's application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the trial court has given elaborate and cogent reasons for holding that the petitioner is required to pay the ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property. The petitioner not only has prayed the relief of declaration of sale deed in question as null and void and declaration of ex parte decree as void and has also admitted in the plaint that possession of the suit property has been taken from him and therefore, he has also prayed for decree of delivery of possession.