Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Balveer Kaur vs Ajitsingh on 14 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 387 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. BALVEER KAUR W/O LATE SHRI JASVEERSINGH
CHHABRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING
1.
48, ADITYA NAGAR INFRONT OF MATA GUJRI SCHOOL,
INDORE DISTRICT- INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NAVNEET SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JASVEERSINGH CHHABRA
2. 48, ADITYA NAGAR, IN FRONT OF MATA GUJRI SCHOOL,
INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS
(SHRI ROHIT KUMAR MANGAL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS)
AND
AJITSINGH S/O LATE SHRI SWROOP SINGH CHHABRA, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL SHUJALPUR MANDI
1.
TEHSIL SHUJALPUR DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SURINDER SINGH S/O SHRI JOGINDER SINGH CHHABRA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL SHUJALPUR
2.
MANDI TEHSIL SHUJALPUR DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
TRILOCHAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SWAROOPSINGH
CHABBRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
3.
SHUJALPUR MANDI TEHSIL SHUJALPUR DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. MANJEET KAUR D/O LATE SHRI SWAROOP SINGH
CHABBRA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
4.
PRATAP NAGAR, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DALIP KAUR @ KULDEEP D/O LATE SHRI SWAROOP SINGH
CHHABRA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL 103,
VISHNUPURI, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-05-
2024 10:27:16
2
PRADESH)
VALINDER KAUR D/O LATE SHRI SWAROOP SINGH
CHHABRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
6.
RAJMOHALLA, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This revision coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:-
ORDER
Heard on the point of admission.
This civil revision has been preferred by the
petitioners/defendants under Section 115 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated
03.04.2024 passed in RCSA No.397/2023 by First Civil Judge,
Junior Scale, Shujalpur, District Shajapur (MP), whereby the
application filed by the petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed without properly
appreciating the averments made in the plaint and material
available on record.
(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff
filed a suit for declaratory relief, permanent injunction and for
nullification of gift deed dated 16.01.2019 of which Rs.1000/- for
declaration of title, Rs.1000/- for permanent injunction and
Rs.5000/- for nullification of gift deed and the total valuation of
suit Rs.7000/- done by the plaintiff.
(3) That notices were issued to the petitioners/defendants to
appear before the Court and the petitioners/defendants appeared
and has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by stating
that the plaintiffs has sought nullification of gift deed dated
16.01.2019 and further sought declaration of 25% of his share in
the disputed house. Along with plaint, plaintiff filed gift deed and
in the gift deed, the valuation of disputed house mentioned as
20255655.5/- and thus the plaintiff has to value the suit 25% of the
total sum. The defendants further submitted that as per correct
valuation of the nullification of gift deed, the trial court does not
possess pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly
prayed for rejection of the suit on the ground of pecuniary
jurisdiction.
(4) After hearing counsel for the petitioners/defendants, the trial
court has passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 and has
rejected the application filed by the petitioners/defendants.
(5) Being aggrieved from the impugned order passed by the
trial court, the petitioners/defendants has filed this revision before
this Court and has submitted that the trial court has committed
error in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without
properly appreciating the plaint averments and has passed the ex
parte order. It is the duty of the trial court to assess the market
value of the gift deed and then direct the plaintiffs to value the suit
properly. So prays for allowing of the application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and for setting aside of the impugned order.
(6) No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs.
(7) Heard counsel for the petitioners/defendants and have
perused the records of the case. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as
under:-
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 by the
plaint is written 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, failed 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 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 great
injustice to the plaintiff."
(8) In Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra and ors.
2003 (1) SCC 557 Civil Appeal No.8518/2002 decided on
17.12.2002, Apex Court held as thus :-
"Deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11, averment
in the plaint can be seen not the plea taken in the written
statement."
(9) Counsel for the petitioners/defendants has bank upon the
citation of Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyani Bhanusali (Gajraj) Dead Through Legal representatives
and Others and Ramisetty Venkatanna and Another Vs. Nasyam
Jamal Saheb and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 521 in
which the Apex Court held that when there is a non disclosure of
real cause of action then the suit may be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC.
(10) In the present case, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the
suit for declaratory relief, permanent injunction and for
nullification of gift deed. According to Apex Court judgment, it is
settled law that at the time of deciding the suit the plaint averments
must be seen. In the present case, the only dispute is that in the gift
deed the plaintiffs have no right to seek it and on perusal of the
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, no suit can be rejected only on the ground
of not proper valuating of suit. It is the duty of the defendants to
raise all these points before the trial court in the written statement
and the trial court must decide the same in accordance with law. It
is stated that at the time of considering the application of Order 7
Rule 11 CPC, no plaint averments had been seen.
(11) Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial
court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed
by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly the civil
revision is dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
Arun/- JUDGE
