Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK C.R.P. No.33 of 2023 An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 *** Ramesh Chandra Nath Sharma … Petitioner -VERSUS- Sudhanshu Sekhar Nath Sharma & Others … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Nath Sharma, Advocate Mr.S.J.Biswal, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K.Nanda, Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025 Page 1 of 9 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C,1908 has been
Legal Reasoning
filed by Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), L.R., Bhubaneswar) against the Opposite Party No.1 (Plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 arraying the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 of the said suit as the proforma Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 challenging an order of rejection to his petition dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C.,1908 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), L.R., Bhubaneswar. 2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017) for filing of the same is that, the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 was filed by the O.P. No.1 in this revision being the Plaintiff praying for partition of the suit properties. 3. In the said suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017, the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) filed a petition on dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the Page 2 of 9 C.P.C., 1908 Praying for rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff under the following two grounds i.e.:- (I) the suit for partition filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable, as the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 (father of the Plaintiff) in respect of which, the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 is not maintainable. (II) The suit of the Plaintiff has been undervalued. To which, the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) objected as per Annexure-3 stating that, the grounds raised in the Petition of the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) for rejection of the plaint are not entertainable, because, on the basis of his pleadings, the same are adjudiciable and the same are required to be decided in the judgment of the suit. For which, the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) is liable to be rejected. 4. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court rejected to the petition dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C., 1908 of the Defendant No.1 as per the impugned Order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) assigning the reasons that, Page 3 of 9 “the plaint of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 cannot be rejected at its threshold in its preliminary stage”. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. 6. Basing upon the Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) objection against the same filed by the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision), findings and observations made above in the impugned order 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) by the learned Trial Court and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this revision is that, (i) whether, the suit of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017) for partition is liable to be rejected at its threshold as per Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C, 1908 on the ground that, the said suit for partition is not maintainable. (ii) whether the plaint in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 can be rejected on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision). 7. So far as, the first ground for rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 i.e. the suit for partition of the Plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that, the suit Page 4 of 9 properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 is concerned:- According to the averments made in the plaint of the Plaintiff, the question i.e. whether the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 or the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence of the Parties, but, the said ground raised by the Defendant No.1 cannot be the basis for rejection of plaint. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Smt.Omwati and others Vrs. Raghubar Singh Yadav and others reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 22 (Allahabad) that, any question, which requires to be decided on the basis of evidence of Parties, cannot be the basis for rejecting a plaint. (ii) In a case between B.Sumithra Rao and others Vrs. Sneha and others reported in 2022 (2) Civ.C.C. 505 Karnatak in Para No.11 that, pure questions of fact involved in the case, the same cannot be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908, for which, the application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. rightly rejected. (iii) and others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 51 that, In a case between K.Akbar Ali Vrs. K.Umar Khan plea of the Plaintiff in the plaint discloses triable issues, for which, plaint cannot be rejected at its initial stage. Page 5 of 9 (iv) In a case between Ugger Singh and others Vrs. Khanda Singh and others reported in 2017 (3) Civ.C.C. 752 (Rajasthan) that, contentious issue sought the Defendant on the basis of the fact set out in the application filed, the same cannot be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. to be raised by 8. When, the above ground raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) i.e. whether the suit properties are his exclusive properties or the said suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants can be raised in his written statement for its decision being an issue in the suit, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the question of rejection of plaint of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908 on such ground raised by the Defendant No.1 does not arise. 9. So far as the 2nd ground raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) i.e. for rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 on the ground that, the suit of the plaintiff was undervalued is concerned:- On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- Page 6 of 9 (i) In a case between Jeevan Ram Vrs. LRs of Joraram through its legal representatives and others (4) Civ.C.C. 382 in 2021 reported (Rajasthan) in Para No.13 that, The plea raised by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground of valuation can be gone into when defendant raises such a plea in the written statement and if any determination is made against the Plaintiff and Court fee is not paid, then provision of Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the C.PC comes into force. Prior to said stage, it cannot be said that, plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of undervaluation. In a case between K.Ramadoss and others Vrs. (Suppl.) Civ.C.C 721 in 2017 (ii) E.Stalin reported (Madras) that, plaint cannot be straightway rejected on the ground of undervaluation or payment of deficient Court fee, because, only when Court founds that, relief has been undervalued or sufficient court fee not paid, directs the Plaintiff to amend the valuation within a time to be stipulated or to pay the deficient Court fee and if the plaintiff fails to do so, then only question of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c) of the C.P.C would arise. (iii) In a case between Smt.Hiramani Devi and another Vrs. Sanjay Singh reported in 2009 (3) Civ.C.C. 670 (Allahabad) in Para No.4 that, Plaint not to be rejected straightway on the ground of under valuation alleged by the Defendant. Because, Plaintiff is to be allowed to rectify the defect and only upon its failure to do so that, the Court is to reject the plaint. In a case between Smt. Renu Jain and (iv) antoher Vrs. Ms.Gunjan reported in AIR 2012 CC 2917 (Delhi) that, A partition suit cannot be rejected as per Order 7 Rule 11 b of the C.P.C, on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant. Page 7 of 9 When, no specific averment in the plaint to the effect that, they (plaintiffs) have been excluded from the possession of the properties in question, but, when, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that, the plaintiffs and Defendants are co-owners of the suit properties and when it is further stated that, “the defendant is in possession of the said properties as a trustee for plaintiffs and the possession of one co-owner shall be deemed to be the possession of all the co-owners, then, the plaintiff shall, thus, be deemed to be also in possession thereof”. As such, the contention of the defendant’s counsel that, the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is undervalued cannot be sustained. (v) In a case between Nandakishore Nayak and others Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2003 (1) OLR 473 in Para No.11 that, valuation of a suit and payment of Court fees is a matter between the Plaintiff and the Court and the Defendants have no say in that respect. So, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 1908 at its threshold on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant. 10. Here, in this revision at hand, when there are averments in the plaint of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) that, the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants and in the said suit properties, the Plaintiff has legitimate share and his share is liable to be partitioned, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the plaint of the Plaintiff cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant No.1. Page 8 of 9 11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when both the above grounds raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this Revision) in his petition dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) for rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908 are not sustainable under law, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Trial Court through this revision filed by him (Petitioner) does not arise. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1). The same must fail. 12. In result, the revision filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017) is dismissed on contest, but, without cost. 13. As such, this revision filed by the Petitioner (Defendant
Decision
No.1) is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 23.12.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Dec-2025 13:51:14 Page 9 of 9