RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. RAMKALYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Sec. 115 of CPC challenging the order dt. 22.10.2013 passed by the District Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 111/11, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shashank Agrawal for the petitioner that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed and for injunction, however the valuation of the suit has not been properly made. According to him the respondent is liable to pay the Court Fees as per the provisions contained in Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961, and that the valuation of the suit should have been done as per the value of the property for which the document was executed, however the respondent has neither valued the suit as per the valuation of the property nor has paid the requisite Court Fees. According to him the trial Court has not appreciated the contention raised by the petitioner and has wrongly dismissed the application. Mr. Shashank Agrawal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Satheedevi vs. Prasanna & Anr., : AIR 2010 SC 2777 and the decision of this Court in case of Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. vs. Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 3, : AIR 2006 Raj. 156 in support of his submissions that the valuation of the suit should have been made as per the market value of the property and accordingly the plaintiff should pay the Court Fees.

(2.) IN the instant case it appears that the petitioner -defendant had filed the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit, and had not paid the requisite Court fees. It further appears that the petitioner has already filed the written statement raising the contention with regard to the under valuation of the suit and non -payment of requisite Court Fees, for which the trial Court has already framed the issue. It is also required to be noted that the trial Court has not passed any order directing the plaintiff to correct the valuation. If the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC are perused, the plaint could be rejected under the said provision when the plaintiff does not correct the valuation of the relief claimed in the suit within the time fixed by the Court, and not otherwise. In the instant case, admittedly no such order requiring the plaintiff to correct the valuation of the suit has been passed by the trial Court. Under the circumstances, the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC. There cannot be any disagreement with the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however the same do not have any bearing on the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, the revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.