The High Court
Case Details
Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 257 Jatinder S der Singh Gill Civil Revision N Date of decision ion No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) cision :-17.09.2025 …..Petitioner Versus Nimrat Ka Kaur Mansahia and others …..Respondents CORAM: AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI E NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocat dvocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. The present revision petitio petition has been filed by the defendant dant No.1 seeking setting aside of de of the order dated 14.7.2023 (Annexure exure P-4) passed by the learned Civil d Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur whereby th eby the application filed by the petiti
Facts
petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Ru issed. r 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. It is inter alia submitted by ted by learned counsel for the petitioner ioner that in dismissing the applicat pplication of the petitioner, the learned tria ed trial Court failed to appreciate tha ate that the Civil Suit was barred by limitat limitation. Moreover, plaintiff/respo /respondent has filed suit for declaration ration that the sale deeds in respect espect of the suit land are void. Therefore, efore, the plaintiff was required to af d to affix ad valorem Court fee; and suit of suit of the plaintiff could not have bee ve been entertained till the court fee was af affixed. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 2 Ld. Counsel submits that the the predecessors-in-interests of the present resent plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to o.1 to 3 herein had executed the impugned gned sale deeds. The said sale deeds deeds were never challenged by the executa xecutants during their lifetime. After t After the deaths of the executants of the sale e sale deeds on 07.2.2016 and 25. d 25.10.2017, present suit was preferred b rred by the plaintiffs on 13.6.2019 2019 for declaration, possession and perman permanent injunction in respect of th t of the suit land. Challenge was laid to the the sale deeds on the grounds of fr s of fraud, without consideration, and withou without possession on the basis o asis of natural succession; and registered W tered Wills dated 16.10.2015 and 3.3.2 d 3.3.2016 allegedly executed by executants utants Darshan Kaur @ Gurdarshan rshan Kaur and Surinder Singh respectively ctively in favour of the plaintiff N ntiff No.3. It is submitted that accordingly rdingly the suit was under valued for C for Court fee and jurisdiction in view of Se of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee rt Fee Act and for want of any cause of e of action in favour of the pla e plaintiffs. However, without appreciatin eciating the above facts, the applicatio lication of the petitioner has been dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in Jailmal Singh vs. Jog . Joginder Singh and others in Civil Revis Revision No.5743 of 2019; and Ne Neelam Rani and others vs. Balwinder nder Singh in Civil Revision No.187 o.1879 of 2021. No judgment to the contrary ontrary has been cited by learned coun d counsel for the petitioner. Even further, as per the fol he following judgments of this Court, pre present revision petition is no is not maintainable. In “Steel Authority ority of India Vs. M/s raja Steel Wo el Works and others” Doc. I.D. 10607, da date of decision on 11.08.201 8.2017” Law Finder Doc Id #965439 it it is held as under:- “ C. Constitution of India, A Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Or fees-Revision by defendant-Main fe p petition before High Court wou hands of the defendants, unless involves the jurisdiction of the C the issue of Court fee, includin would be primarily between th Defendants cannot be permitted suit before the learned trial Cour a, Article 227-Code of Civil ), Order 7 Rule 11-Ad valorem Maintainability of-No revision would be maintainable at the less the question of court fee he Court-It is so said, because luding its alleged inadequacy, n the plaintiffs and the State- tted to stall the progress of the ourt, because it is not going to VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 5 suffer any kind of prejudice due court fee paid by the plaintiffs. due to alleged inadequacy of XXX XXX X XX XXX 23. Further, during the course o with as to what kind of prejud caused to the defendants by pas which may warrant interference while exercising its supervisory 227 of the Constitution of India p petitioner(s) had no answer and of record. Thus, following the law Supreme Court in Vimla’s case ( case (supra) as well as by two F in Krishan Kumar Grover’s cas (supra), it is held that no revisio would be maintainable at the unless the question of court fee court. It is so said, because the i its alleged inadequacy, would plaintiffs and the State. p se of hearing, when confronted ejudice, whatsoever, has been passing the impugned orders, nce at the hands of this Court, sory jurisdiction under Article India, learned counsel for the and rightly so, it being a matter e law laid down by Hon’ble the ase (supra), Shamsher Singh’s wo Full Benches of this Court case and Arjan Motor’s case ision petition before this Court the hands of the defendants, fee involves the jurisdiction of the issue of court fee, including uld be primarily between the ances, defendants cannot be 24. Under such circumstance ss of the suit before the learned p permitted to stall the progress of ot going to suffer any kind of trial court, because it is not go equacy of court fee paid by the p prejudice due to alleged inadequ ot be an absolute rule in every p plaintiffs. Although it may not be rt would normally insist asking given situation, yet this Court wo cus standi and right to file and the defendants to show his locus before this Court, against an maintain a revision petition bef trial court, dismissing his tri order passed by Rule 11 CPC. It is so said application under Order 7 Rul re the plaintiffs are claiming because in the cases where th t, court fee can always be fixed tentatively calculated amount, co amount, asking the plaintiffs to after the court quantifies the amo pay adequate court fee.” p learned The observations made in the in the judgment titled as “Surjit Kaur and a and another Vs. Sanamdeep Singh a gh and others Law Today Live Doc.ID105 10580 decided on 31.07.2017 Law Law Finder Doc Id #965380 is reproduced duced as under:- “B. Code of Civil Procedure 190 11-Constitution of India, Article (7 of 1870), Section 7-Sale dee valorem court fees-payment of co is primarily between the plaint petition at the hands of defen p 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule ticle 227-Court Fees Act, 1870 deed-Suit for declaration-Ad- of court fee is a question which laintiff and the State-Revision efendants is not maintainable VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 6 against the order passed by t application under Order7 rule 11 XXX XXX XXX by the trial Court dismissing le 11 CPC.” 5. Further revision petition at the maintainable against the order dismissing application under O p payment of court fee is a qu between the plaintiff and the S Court in “Rathnavarmaraja Ra 1961 SC 1299 has held that the challenge the aforesaid order by t the hands of defendants is not rder passed by the trial court r Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The question which is primarily e State. Hon'ble the Supreme Raja Vs. Smt. Vimla” AIR t the defendant has no right to r by filing appeal or revision.” Further, reliance can be place e placed on the judgment passed in “Ishwar war Dayal Sehgal and others Vs. S Vs. Sunita Chattly” decided on 08.04.2021 2021, I.D. 16136. The relevant part i t part is extracted as under: - “A. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 11-Constitution of India, Articl Objection to proper court fee Appeal/Revision against-Maint appeal or revision at the ha maintainable.” 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule rticle 227-Rejection of plaint- fee-Dismissal of application- aintainability of-No further hands of the defendants is have filed this revision petition locutory order passed by the unior Division), Panchkula, plication for rejection of the er 7 Rule 11 CPC. ion of the defendants is that fee. t affixed proper court Junior Division, ound that the proper court fee Still further, no further appeal he hands of the defendants is view of the judgment passed by ’ble Supreme Court in raja Vs. Smt. Vimla’AIR 1961 Sc 1. “The defendants have against an interlocu (Junio Civil Judge dismissed an applica plaint under Order 7 2. The first objection plaintiff has not a Judge, Ju Learned Civil Panchkula, has found has been affixed. Still or revision at the h maintainable in view the Hon’ble ‘Sri Rathnavarmaraja 1299. xxxxxxxxx 4.In the considered view can be examined by adjudicating the suit. H jurisdiction under Artic of India is made out.” view of this Court, this matter by the Court while finally it. Hence, no ground to exercise Article 227 of the Constitution Reference can also be made made to the judgment passed in CR No.79 No.7906-2018 (O & M) “Ravi Loy Loyal and another Vs. The VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 7 Presbyteria terian Church of Aotearao.New Ze Zealand and others” decided on 01.04.20 04.2022 I.d. 16635, and the relevant levant extract reads thus:- “Constitution of India, Art valorem court fee-Maintain petition on behalf of defenda in payment of the Court fee i 2.In view of the judgmen Supreme Court in Sri Rathn Air 1961 (Supreme Court) on behalf of defendants c payment of the Court fee is n Article 227-Deficiency in ad- tainability of revision-Revision endants complaining deficiency fee is not maintainable.” ment passed by the Hon’ble athnavarmaraja Vs. Smt Vimla urt) 1299, the revision petition ts complaining deficiency in is not maintainable.” Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner can derive no benefit from the re the relied upon judgment in case of ase of Boda Ram (supra) as the same is dis is distinguishable on facts and law. In view of the above noted noted facts, as also the legal position, th the present civil revision petition, tition, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
Arguments
issed. In support, learned counsel relie el relies upon the judgment of this Court in t in Boda Ram vs. Beermati Devi a evi and others 2014 (12) RCR (Civil) 105 il) 1057 Law Finder Doc Id # 493282 93282. Accordingly, it is prayed that the imp the impugned order be set aside. No other argument has been ad been advanced by learned counsel for the peti he petitioner. I have heard learned co counsel and perused the case file. Brief facts of the case are tha are that the plaintiffs/respondents had filed filed a suit dated 13.6.2019 (Anne (Annexure P-1) for declaration, possession ession and permanent injunction. The The petitioner/defendant No.1 VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 3 had filed an iled an application dated NIL (Annexu nnexure P-2) for rejection of the plaint unde t under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the on the grounds that suit is barred by limitatio mitation under Article 59 of the Limit Limitation Act; and suit is under valued for ed for the purpose of Court fee and jur nd jurisdiction in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of (c) of the Court Fee Act. The plaintif plaintiff had filed the reply dated 24.9.2019 .2019 (Annexure P-3) to the said ap application of the petitioner. The learne learned trial Court vide the impugn mpugned order dated 14.7.2023 (Annexure exure P-4) has dismissed the applicati plication of the petitioner. I find no infirmity in the impu impugned order as the limitation is a mixed mixed question of facts and law. It i w. It is the clear mandate of the Hon’ble Su Supreme Court in numerous judg s judgments that in adjudicating upon an ap an application under Order 7 Rule 1 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in th in the plaint can be considered; and d; and even the written statement to the plain e plaint cannot be adverted to. I find I find support in my view from judgment o ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in “Eldeco Housing and Industries tries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & O & Others” (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # D # 2406865, wherein it has been been held that no evidence or merits of th ts of the controversy can be examined mined at the stage of deciding an application cation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; a PC; and that only the averments made in th in the plaint would be relevant for nt for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In “ . In “Kamala & Others Vs. K.T. Esh Eshwara Sa & Others” 2008 (12) SCC 6 CC 661, it is held that in an applicat pplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, no e , no evidence can be looked into; iss to; issue on merits of the matter would not b d not be within the realm of the Court Court at that stage; and the Court would not d not decide any evidence or disp r disputed question of fact or law. Wheth Whether or not, there exists a cause of ause of action in the present case; VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & O & M) 4 or whether hether the present suit is barred by lim by limitation are mixed questions of fact fact and Law, which can can only be determined by trial upon upon leading of evidence. Thus, no e no error can be found in the impugned o gned order. Furthermore, I find merit in th it in the reasoning of the learned trial Court Court that the plaintiff is seeking canc g cancellation of the sale deed on the ground round of fraud. As such, the plaintif laintiff would not be required to pay ad valo d valorem Court fee. In support, the le , the learned trial Court has relied upon the ju the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in Santosh vs. Jagat Ram and and another in Civil Appeal No.1 l No.1881 of 2008; and Sajjan Singh vs. J vs. Jasvir Kaur and others in Civi n Civil Appeal No.4221 of 2023 and of this
Decision
if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ember 17, 2025 September Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document