Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs Mahraban
2021 Latest Caselaw 215 MP

                           -( 1 )-       CR No. 268/2020
         Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.



             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR

                               (Single Bench)

                      Civil Revision No. 268/2020

Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava                         ..... PETITIONERS
                                    Versus
Mahraban & Ors.                                  ..... RESPONDENTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM

           Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

       Shri Anil Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri I.S. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether approved for Reporting               :       No

Reserved on           :       17.02.2021

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ORDER

(Passed on 25th February, 2021)

The order dated 1.10.2020 and 1.12.2020 passed by

Civil Judge Class-I, Morena in Civil Suit No.91A/2020,

have been called in question by way of present revision,

-( 2 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

whereby the court below has partially dismissed the

applications under Order 7 Rule 11 (B)(D) CPC and

under Order 7 Rule 11(C)(D) CPC filed by the present

petitioner/ defendant.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the

respondents/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 91A/2020

before Civil Judge Class-1, Morena, District Morena,

with the pleadings that the respondents/plaintiffs are the

Bhumiswami and possession holder of the disputed

property. Earlier, disputed property was in the ownership

of the mother of the respondents/plaintiffs. After the

death of respondents/plaintiffs' mother, the

respondents/plaintiffs and their father became the

registered owner of the property in question. After the

death of father of the respondents/plaintiffs on

20/1/2019, respondents/plaintiffs became the owner and

possession holder of the disputed property. According to

the petitioner/defendant, she purchased the property

from the father of the respondents/plaintiffs by

registered sale deed dated 23/12/2014 challenging which

the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the

petitioner/ defendant.

-( 3 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

3. The petitioner/defendant has specifically raised

preliminary objection about maintainability of the suit

filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs. It is further pleaded

by the petitioner that the suit filed by the

respondents/plaintiffs is illegal and infructuous. The

valuation in the suit is wrong and is insufficient and the

respondents/plaintiffs also did not pay the sufficient

court fee as per valuation in the suit. Therefore,

applications under Order 7 Rule 11 (B)(D) CPC and

Under Order 7 Rule 11(C)(D) had been filed by the

petitioner/defendant for rejecting the plaint being not

maintainable. The trial Court has rejected the

applications filed by the petitioner/ defendant. Hence,

this revision petition is preferred.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner/defendant that the applications under Order 7

Rule 11 (B)(D) of CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 (C)

(D) of CPC were filed by the defendant with the

pleading that the relief claimed was not valued and on

being asked by the Court below to correct the valuation

within time, the plaintiffs failed to do so as well as the

respondents/plaintiffs did not pay the sufficient court-

-( 4 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

fee as per valuation in the suit, despite the Court below

dismissed the applications filed by the defendant. It is

further submitted that impugned orders Annexure A-1

and A-2 are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be

quashed. Respondents/plaintiffs cannot value the suit

arbitrarily. Valuation of the suit, according to the

respondents/plaintiffs is Rs.18,37,400/-. The actual

valuation of the suit, according to law, is Rs.3,37,400/-

i.e. on the valuation of the sale-deed and the valuation

of suit according to market value i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- is

wrong and illegal. Even if the valuation of the suit is

considered to be Rs.18,37,400/-, then the

respondents/plaintiffs are liable to pay the court-fee on

the aforesaid valuation of Rs.18,37,400/- but sufficient

court-fee had not been paid by the respondents/plaintiffs

and on these premises, the suit filed by the respondent is

liable to be rejected. In support of his submissions,

learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon

the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases

of J. Vasabthi & Ors. vs. N. Ramani & Ors., (AIR

2017 SC 3813), Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs.

Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010 AIR SCW 3308) and

-( 5 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

Shamsher Singh vs. Rajinder Prasad & Ors., (1973

AIR SC 2384) and the judgments passed by Division

Benches as well as Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in

the cases of Sudhirdas vs. United Church of D

Canada India & Ors., [2020 (3) MPLC 119 (M.P.)],

Israt Jahan vs. Rajja Begum & Ors., [2010 (I) MPWN

32], Rajkumar Jain vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., [2010 (I)

MPWN 63] and Hazi Subanul Haq vs. Mohammad

Israr, [1983 JLJ-SN 55] . Hence, prayed to allow this

civil revision.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/

plaintiff has opposed the revision and has submitted that

no error has been committed by the trial Court in

rejecting the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 (B)(D)

and under Order 7 Rule 11 (C)(D) of CPC and the

revision before this Court is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

7. In the impugned order dated 01/12/2020, learned

Trial Court has observed as under:-

"mHk;i{kks a ds rdks Z ds ifjis { ; es a iz d j.k dk voyks d u fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g nf'kZ r gks r k gS fd oknhx.k }kjk nq x kZ i q j h dkW y ks u h fLFkr ekS t k f'kdkjiq j

-( 6 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

rglhy o ftyk eq j S u k ds Hkw f e los Z dz e ka d 356 feu 3 ds va ' k Hkkx 44 xq f .kr 15 QhV Hkkx ij fufeZ r Hkou ds la n HkZ es a LoRo ?kks " k.kk] LFkkbZ fu"ks / kkKk gs r q nkok is ' k fd;k gS vkS j oknxz L r Hkou dk ew Y ;kda u LoRo ?kks " k.kk gs r q 15 yk[k :ils ,o iz f rokfn;k }kjk lEikfnr fodz ; i= fnuka d 23-12- 2014 es a va f dr iz f rQy jkf'k 3]37]400 :i;s ds vk/kkj ij dq y U;k;'kq Y d 1100 :i;s vnk fd;k x;k gS A ;g voyks d uh; gS fd vkns ' k 7 fu;e 11 ds va r xZ r ds o y oknh }kjk nkos es a fd;s x;s vfHkopuks a dks gh ns [ kk tkuk vko';d gks r k gS A oknh }kjk nkos ds fy, tks ew Y ;ka d u fd;k x;k gS ] mlds vk/kkj ij U;klky; dks iz d j.k dks Jo.k djus dh {ks = kf/kdkfjrk gks u k nf'kZ r gks r h gS A iz f roknh }kjk tks vkifRr;ka yh xbZ gS a ] og lk{; dh fo"k;oLrq gS ] ftUgs a iz f roknh vius tckonkos es a mBkus ds fy, Lora = gS A "

8. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

runs as under :-

"Order VII Rule 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;

-( 7 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

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 for 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."

9. It is well settled principle of law that while

considering the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of

CPC, only the averments made in the plaint alone are to

be looked into.

10. The scope of scrutiny at the stage of consideration

of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC is

confined only to the averments made in the plaint which

could not be decided by way of an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. See, Surjit Kaur Gill and

another vs. Adarsh Kaur Gill and another [(2014) 16

SCC 125); P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha

Reddy and others [(2015) 8 SCC 331]; and, Madanuri

Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13

SCC 174].

-( 8 )- CR No. 268/2020 Smt. Manglesh Shrivastava vs. Mahraban & Ors.

9. In view of the aforementioned reason, in my view,

the Court below has not committed any legal infirmity or

perversity while passing the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the civil revision filed by the

petitioner/defendant is hereby dismissed being devoid of ALOK KUMAR 2021.02.27 merit.

 09:52:59
 -08'00'
 11.0.8
                                              (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
AKS                                                     Judge.