Himachal Pradesh High Court
Joginder Singh & Anr vs Sudesh Kumari & Anr on 2 August, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Civil Revision No.05 of 2018
Decided on: 2nd August, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
.
Joginder Singh & Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
Sudesh Kumari & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shanti Swaroop, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 ex-parte.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Defendants No. 1 and 3 are aggrieved against the
order dated 13.10.2017, passed by the learned Trial Court
rejecting their application moved under Order 7 Rule 11(b)(c)
of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short) for rejecting the
plaint of the suit instituted by respondent No.1.
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides and
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
considered the case file.
3(i) A civil suit was instituted by respondent No.1
seeking possession of the subject land. Para-6 of the plaint
.
pertaining to valuation of the suit and Court fee, reads as
under:-
"6. That the value of the suit for the purpose of Court
fees and jurisdiction is assessed 30 times the land
revenue but the land revenue does not described in the
revenue record and the value of the suit is assessed for
the sum of Rs.230 and the court fees is accordingly
affixed on the plaint."
3(ii). Petitioners (defendants No.1 and 3) moved an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 (b)(c) CPC for rejecting the
plaint on the ground of incorrect valuation of suit and non-
payment of proper Court fee. The petitioners (defendants
No.1 and 3) pleaded that value of suit has been assessed 30
times of land revenue but the land revenue is not described
in the revenue record, therefore, value of the suit assessed
for Rs.230/- is imaginary and without any basis; As per
Section 7(V)(d) of Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, in suit
for possession of the land, the plaintiff is required to value
the suit and pay proper Court fee on the market value of the
land as assessed by the State Government being circle rates
of the land of Up Mohal Rakkar Colony. According to the
petitioners (defendants No.1 and 3), market value of the
category of land in question was fixed at Rs.1558/- per. sq.
.
mrt., hence, market value of the suit land was Rs. 6,43,454/.
The petitioners (defendants No.1 and 3) thus contended that
plaintiff is required to value the suit on the basis of aforesaid
market value and was also required to affix proper Court fee
on the plaint. Since, this had not been done by the plaintiff,
prayer was made to reject the plaint.
r Respondent No.1-
plaintiff denied the assertions of the petitioners (defendants
No.1 and 3).
3(iii) Learned Trial Court vide its order dated
13.10.2017, dismissed the application holding that at that
stage Court cannot presume that the suit land falls under
Section 7(V)(d) of the Court Fees Act and it can be concluded
only after appreciating the evidence.
4. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under:-
"11. Rejection of plaint:-The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) 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;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but
the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by
the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do
.
so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law:
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions
of Rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the
requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless
the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that
the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or
supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may
be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal
to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the
plaintiff."
No doubt, a bare reading of above provision makes
it clear that even if the plaint is not properly valued and/or
sufficiently stamped, then the plaintiff can be required by the
Court to supply requisite stamp papers and/or to correct the
valuation within a time-line. In case the needful is done
within the prescribed time-line, there would be no occasion
for rejecting the plaint. Learned Trial Court has not
discussed in the impugned order the provisions of Order 7
Rule 11 (b)(c) and the proviso thereto. The impugned order
does not give out any deliberation, discussion on the issue as
to at what stage the issue about incorrect valuation or
.
insufficiently stamped plaint was required to be considered
and why. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is
without adequate reasoning. Hence, for this reason alone,
the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
13.10.2017 is set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to
decide the application moved by the petitioners (defendants
No.1 and 3) afresh in accordance with law.
The parties through their learned counsel are
directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on
21.08.2024. It is made clear the observations made are only
for the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be
construed as an opinion of the Court on the issue involved.
All rights and contentions of the parties are left open for
consideration by the Trial Court.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
August 02, 2024
R.Atal
