The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 399 of 2021 [An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India] Davinder Kaur Flora and another …. Petitioners -Versus- Debaraj Bidhar ….. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Sr. Advocate with M/s. M.R. Baug, R.R. Baug R.R. Jethy & G.R. Sahoo, Advocates. For Opp.Party : None _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 20th August, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners of the present application, who are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in C.S. No. 87 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar, question the correctness of order dated Page 1 of 13 03.08.2021 passed by the said Court in rejecting the application filed by them for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule, 11(b) and (c) of CPC. 2. The facts of the case are that the sole opposite party filed the aforementioned suit seeking the following relief:
Facts
“(a) let, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree declaring the unilateral cancellation of General Power of Attorney (GPA) dtd.06.08.2014 by virtue of Regd. Deed of Cancellation dtd.01 09 2020 pertaining to the suit premises after creating interest by the Plaintiff dtd. 07.02.2015 is illegal, invalid, inoperative and not binding on the Plaintiff thereon vide Regd. Agreement for Sale. restraining (b) let, a decree of permanent injunction be passed jointly and/or severally to create any third party interest in respect of the suit premises during subsisting of Regd. Agreement for Sale dtd. 07.02.2015. the Defendants (c) let the Defendant No-1 be directed to obtain permission within a specific time from the competent authority for transfer of suit premises on receipt of balance consideration amount in favour of the Plaintiff in pursuant to Regd. Agreement dtd.07.02.2015. (d) that, during pendency of the suit if it is found that the Defendants jointly and/or severally caused any material damage the suit premises that too during subsisting of Regd. Agreement the damaged caused be regularized at the cost of the Defendants by way of mandatory direction. for Sale dtd. 07.02.2015 to Page 2 of 13 (e) let, the cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, AND (f) let, any other relief (s) to which the Plaintiff is entitled to in view of the facts and in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court may and also be granted” 3. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3, after appearance, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 08.07.2021 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit and written the plaint on insufficient Stamp paper/Court fees. The plaintiff filed his objection on 19.07.2021. The Court below, after hearing the parties rejected the application vide order dated 03.08.2021, which is impugned. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Court would like to keep in perspective the position of law relating to valuation of the suit and payment of Court fees. It is well settled that valuation in a suit for declaration with consequential relief as furnished by the Page 4 of 13 plaintiff is ordinarily to be accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and revise the same. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj1 can be referred to in this regard. It is also well settled that the averments of the plaint are to be read in its entirety to form an opinion as regards the actual relief sought for by the plaintiff for the purpose of valuation. Reference may be had in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others.2 7. Viewed on the anvil of the proposition of law as referred above, it is seen that the case of the plaintiff is that the deceased defendant No.1 had executed and registered a general power of attorney in his favour on
Arguments
Heard Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior counsel with Mr. G.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite valid service of notice, the opposite party did not appear. 5. Sri Baug would argue that if the plaint averments are considered in their entirety, it would be evident that the plaintiff, in garb of seeking the relief of Page 3 of 13 mandatory injunction under paragraph-13(c) of the plaint has, in fact, sought for a decree of specific performance of contract. As such, the relief is governed under Section 7(x) of the Court Fees Act with the plaintiff being liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the agreement valuation of the suit land. The valuation of the suit land, as per the registered agreement for sale dated 07.02.2015, is Rs.8,00,00,000/- and as such, Court fee on such amount is to be paid but by clever drafting, the plaintiff has valued the suit for declaratory relief and for injunction, which is grossly undervalued. Under such circumstances, the plaint ought to be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Sri Baug has relied upon several judgments in support of his contentions, which would be discussed hereinafter. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this