SHAMIM BANO W/O SHRI RUSTAM ALI, AGED 60 YEARS Vs. NEK MOHAMMED @ AZIZ S/O GHEESU KHAN, BY CASTE KAYAMKHANI (MOYAL), R/O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dated 3.8.16 passed by the Civil Judge, Sujangarh (Churu) in Civil Suit No. 5/09, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction, which is being contested by the petitioners-defendants by filing a written statement thereto. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners-defendants preferred an application under Sec. 11 of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 ( for short the Act ) read with Order 7, Rule 11 and 151 CPC. The rejection was sought on the ground that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and has not paid the requisite court fee. It was contended that the suit was required to be valued for each reliefs separately and accordingly, the court fee was required to be paid. The application was disposed of by the court vide order dated 21.7.15 with the directions to the plaintiff to pay the court fee after valuation of the suit in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order passed by the court, the plaintiff amended the plaint and paid the deficient court fee. However, the petitioners-defendant made an application under Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure stating that the valuation made by the plaintiff is not proper and the suit is required to be valued taking the market value of the property as Rs.6,60,715.00. The application preferred was disposed of by the trial court with the directions to the plaintiff to make the valuation of the suit in consonance with the order dated 21.7.15. The plaintiff was given last opportunity to make the valuation of the suit for the reliefs claimed separately and to pay the court fee accordingly. In compliance of the order passed by the court, the plaintiff filed the amended plaint on 9.2.16 and paid the court fee for each relief claimed separately, while disclosing the market value of the property as Rs.4,42,316/-. The petitioners-defendants preferred yet another application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the market value of the property as assessed by the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner is Rs.6,60,715.00 and therefore, the court fee paid disclosing the market value of the property as Rs.4,42,316/- is deficient and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected.

(3.) After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the court below observing that the market value of the property cannot be assessed at this stage and the issue arising in this regard shall be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. Hence, this petition.