Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:27502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 64 of 2025 1 - Trilok Patel S/o Late Manku Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Sargipal Para Village And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1). 2 - Narpati Patel S/o Late Manku Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Sargipal Para Village And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2). 3 - Mukesh S/o Manku Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Sargipal Para Village And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 3). 4 - Vimla Wd/o Late Manku Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o Sargipal Para Village And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh
Facts
(Defendant No. 4). 5 - Laxmi D/o Late Manku Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o Sargipal Para Village And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 5). 6 - Mansingh Patel S/o Late Nakchhedi Aged About 46 Years R/o Sargipal Para Village And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 6). ... Applicant(s) versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 14). 2 - Chhanu S/o Late Chhedilal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 7). 3 - Shivlal S/o Chhedilal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 8). 4 - Shambhu S/o Chhedilal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 9). 5 - Chokdai S/o Sivanti (Since Died) Nil (Defendant No. 10). 6 - Pisadibai S/o Late Manglu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 11). 7 - Jageshwar S/o Late Vishal Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 12). 8 - Mahribai D/o Late Vishal Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 13).
Legal Reasoning
ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sonbati & Ors. Vs. Pushpa Bai & Another passed in CR No. 34/2019. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commercial Aviation and Travel Company Inc. (supra) held in para 9 of its judgment as under: 7 “9. In this connection, we may refer to the provision of order VII, Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, inter alia, that the 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. It is manifestly clear from the provision of Order VII, Rule II(b) that a Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued, which necessarily means that the Court is able to decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief and, after determination of the correct value of the relief, requires the plaintiff to correct his valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court. If the plaintiff does not correct the valuation within the time allowed, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The question is whether in a suit for accounts simpliciter, the Court can come to a finding as to the proper and correct value of the relief until the final determination is made. In our opinion, ordinarily it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to determine the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter. If the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him. Indeed, in a suit for 8 accounts it is also difficult for the Court to come to a finding even as to the approximate correct valuation of the relief. In such a case, the Court has no other alternative than to accept plaintiff's valuation tentatively.” 7. In the present case, it is evident that the applicants have filed written statement and filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, but as per averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs have paid court fee as per description of the suit property and since written statement is filed by the defendants, this objection regarding ad valorem court fee is premature. 8. Thus, keeping in view the the principles of law laid down by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above matter and the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. However, the applicants are at liberty to amend and raise all the issues regarding proper Court Fees and the trial Court after consideration frame issue regarding the valuation of the suit and court fees and the same shall be decided in accordance with law.
Arguments
9 - Smt. Pushpa Patel Wd/o Late Sewakram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff). 10 - Mahesh Patel S/o Late Sewakram Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff). 11 - Ramesh Patel S/o Late Sewakram Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff). 3 12 - Maheshwari D/o Late Sewakram Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff). 13 - Jayshree D/o Late Sewakram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff). 14 - Kavita D/o Late Sewakram Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kondagaon Sargipalpara Ward, Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 9 to : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. 14 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/06/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Second Civil Judge Senior Division, Kondagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Civil suit No. 15-A/2023, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the plaintiffs/respondents No. 9 to 4 14 have instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of Title, Partition, and Possession in respect of ½ share of half portion of the suit property situated at Sargipalpara, bearing Land Sheet No. 02, Land No. 513/8-A, admeasuring 20,037 sq. ft. The suit property is stated to be a part of a larger land parcel measuring 5009.25 sq. ft. Upon service of summons in the said suit, the present applicants entered appearance before the learned Trial Court and contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing their detailed written statement. The applicants have also preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending inter alia that the suit property has not been properly valued and that the court fees paid is deficient. Accordingly, the applicants prayed for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs have filed their reply to the said application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, opposing the contentions of the applicants and justifying the valuation and court fee affixed. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties have rejected the said application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the present revisionists vide its order dated 20.09.2024. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the subject land is not agricultural land, it is a Nazul land in which a house has also been built up, but the plaintiff has undervalued the suit 5 property in respect of possession in view of Section 7(5) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the trial court has erred by calculating the court fees according to the land revenue for the agricultural land. He placed reliance in the matter of Tankeshwar Prasad Dewangan vs. Bindu Dewangan & Others vide order dated 30.01.2024 passed in CR No.13/2024 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 9 to 14 submits that the applicants/defendants No. 1 to 6 have preferred the present revision petition primarily on the untenable ground that the trial court has failed to consider the alleged undervaluation of the suit and non-payment of ad valorem court fees under Sections 7(iv)(c) and 7(iii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, while rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, the said application was misconceived, premature, and appears to be a dilatory tactic aimed at stalling the proceedings, especially when the trial was progressing in favour of the plaintiffs. He further submits that the provision under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC mandates rejection of the plaint only where the plaintiff fails to pay the required court fee within the time fixed by the court, which in the present case has neither been computed nor any such time prescribed. He further submits that the very foundation of the applicants’ claim under Order 7 6 Rule 11 CPC does not sustain. He further submits that the exaggerated valuation of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the residential property, now raised for the first time in the revision, was not even mentioned in the original application dated 08.01.2024, and is clearly an afterthought intended to mislead this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that reliance placed by the applicants on Sections 7(iv)(c) and 7(iii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is completely misplaced. Section 7(iv)(c) empowers the plaintiff to determine the valuation of the relief, and Section 7(iii) pertains to movable property, which is not the subject matter of the present suit. He further submits that while denying all contrary submissions made in the memorandum of revision, the answering respondent respectfully submits that the present revision is frivolous and devoid of merit, and reserves the right to file a detailed reply if so directed by this Hon’ble Court at a later stage. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-
Decision
9. With this observation, the revision stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat