The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 18:44:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 535 OF 2024 Rajdeep Patnaik …. Petitioner Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate Bhisma Meher …. Opp. Party -versus- CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 23.07.2024 2. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 12th February, 2024 (Annexure-5) passed in T.S. No.50 of 2021 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kantabanji rejected an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC filed by the Defendant-Petitioner. 3. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed for a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.34 of 1996 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Titilagarh is void, inoperative in the eye of law and to declare that the Plaintiff is not bound by the said judgment and decree. Further prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property has been made along with a prayer for confirmation of possession. For the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee, the suit was valued at Rs.2,20,000/- and ad valorem Court fee of Rs.7784.25/- has been paid thereon. The Defendant-Petitioner filed an application Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 18:44:49 under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is under-valued. It was contended that the market value of the suit land is more than Rs.13 lakhs and in order to avoid payment of Court fee, the Plaintiff has grossly undervalued the suit. 4. In support of his submission, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the Bench Mark Valuation of Mouza Kharli. The Bench Mark Valuation of the suit property was Rs.1,37,000/- per acre. Since the suit property was to the extent of Ac.13.430 decimals, it would have been more than Rs.13 lakhs. Learned trial Court holding that the pleading of the parties are complete and issues have already been framed in the suit, rejected the petition. It was also observed by learned trial Court that an issue with regard to market value of the suit land has also been framed for adjudication. Accordingly, learned trial Court rejected the petition. Assailing the same, this CMP has been filed. 5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case of Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others –v- Vimla Pannalal, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1636, wherein at Paragraph-13, it is held as under: “13. But, there may be cases under section 7(iv) where certain positive objective standard may be available for the purpose of determination of the valuation of the relief. If there be materials or objective standards for the valuation of the relief, and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and puts an arbitrary valuation, the Court, in our opinion, is entitled to interfere under order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. for the Court will be in a Position to determine the correct valuation with reference the objective standards or materials available to it. In Urmilabala Biswas v. Binapani Biswas & ors., AIR 1938 Cal 161 a suit was instituted for declaration of title to Provident Fund money to Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 18:44:49 amounting to a definite sum with a prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing the said money. It was held that there was no real distinction between the right to recover money and the right to that money itself, and that the relief should have been valued at the Provident Fund amount to which title was claimed by the Plaintiff. Thus, it appears that case the suit was one under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, there was an objective standard which would enable the plaintiff and the Court too to value the relief correctly and, in such a case, the Court would be competent to direct the plaintiff to value the relief accordingly.” that although in 5.1 He, therefore, submits that the Court while adjudicating a petition under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC should take into consideration the material available on record with regard to valuation of the suit property and pass necessary orders. In the instant case, the Bench Mark Valuation of the suit property is more than Rs.1,37,000/- per acre. Thus, the valuation of the suit should have been much more than Rs.13 lakhs. Since the valuation of the suit property is shockingly disproportionate to the Bench Mark Valuation, the plaint should have been rejected. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5. 6. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court observes that the Plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit. But, it should not be demonstratively low. Be that as it may, while considering an application under VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court can only look into the pleadings made in the plaint. On perusal of the copy of plaint at Annexure- 1, this Court finds that there is no such averment in the plaint which would suggest that the valuation of the suit would be more than what is stated therein. Any material beyond the plaint cannot be taken into consideration at the time of adjudication of Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 18:44:49 the petition under any of the clause under Order VI Rule 11 CPC. Further, as observed by learned trial Court, the suit is at the stage of hearing and an issue with regard to market value of the suit property has been framed taking into consideration the pleadings of the written statement. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the petition under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC. Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4