S. PRAMEELA PRAMILA Vs. MANDALA JYOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Md. Imran Khan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 4; and Mr. S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of order dtd. 1/12/2021 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No. 565 of 2018 in O.S.No.221 of 2017.

(3.) By order dtd. 30/12/2021 this Court had summed up the controversy in the following manner: Petitioner, as the plaintiff, has instituted the related suit O.S.No.221 of 2017 for partition of suit property. Defendants filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation. It is submitted that defendants also raised the contention that the suit was undervalued and, therefore, it should be rejected on that ground as well. By the order dtd. 1/12/2021, learned court below rejected I.A.No.565 of 2018. However, plaintiff (petitioner herein) was directed to pay the deficit court fee within a period of one month i.e., on or before 30/12/2021. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 1/12/2021, the present civil revision has been filed. Order VII Rule 11 deals with rejection of plaint. As per clause (b), a plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court fails, to do so. A reading of this provision would go to show that there must be a prior order or direction of the court to the plaintiff to correct the valuation within a stipulated period, failing which the plaint shall be rejected. In the instant case, what has happened is that on a petition filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint, learned court below found the same to be merit less and accordingly rejected the same. However, while so rejecting the petition, plaintiff was directed to pay the deficit court fee on or before 30/12/2021. When petition under Order VII Rule 11 was dismissed, question of the court below directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on such petition does not arise. Learned court below could not have issued such direction on the rejected petition of the defendants. Issue notice. Since respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented, formal notice to the said respondents stands obviated. However, petitioner to take steps for service of notice on respondent Nos.1 and 4 through the court process. In the meanwhile, the direction of the court below contained in paragraph 6 (j) of the order dtd. 1/12/2021 shall remain stayed.