NAR SINGH Vs. DESBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revision petition preferred by petitioners -defendants Nar Singh & Ashok sons of Singh Ram (for brevity "the defendants"), is to the impugned order dated 14.1.2014 (Annexure P4), by virtue of which, the trial Court dismissed their application (Annexure P2) for rejection of plaint of respondents -plaintiffs Desbir and others (for short "the plaintiffs") under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.

(2.) EX facie the argument of learned counsel that since the plaintiffs were required to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the plaint, so the trial Court committed the legal mistake to dismiss the application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera & Ors. : 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 1 and this Court in case Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Arya Mittar and others, (2007 -1)145 PLR 798 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was ruled that where the plaintiff filed the suit regarding the property situated within the municipal limits or abadi deh, then, he is required to pay the ad valorem Court fee. There can hardly be any dispute with respect to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the instant controversy for the reasons mentioned here -in -below.

(3.) MOREOVER , the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P2) of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P4), which, in substance, is as under (para 4): - -