Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramratan Rathor vs Ram Avtar Rathor on 12 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17670
1 MP-2985-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2985 of 2021
RAMRATAN RATHOR AND OTHERS
Versus
RAM AVTAR RATHOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Krishna Soni - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajendra Jain- Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2021
passed in RCS-A No.317 of 2021 by Fourth Civil Judge Class-I, District
Gwalior, whereby the trial Court had directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay
ad-valorem court fee.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed a suit for
declaration permanent injunction and for cancellation of sale deed dated
09.10.2017 and for void declaration of sale deed. Petitioners have not
executed the sale deed and it is stated that executant of sale deed never give
thumb impression over the sale deed and they had always signed the
document. It is further submitted that Shrikishan has already divided the
property between the family member on 02.02.2019 and one document has
been executed in this respect. Respondent No.1 has filed an application under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17670
2 MP-2985-2021
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court and submitted that petitioners
must deposit ad-valorem court fee.
3. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, allowed the
application and directed the petitioners to deposit ad-valorem court fee in
the disputed sale deed.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioners filed this
petition and submitted that impugned order is contrary to law and to the facts
of the case. It is further submitted petitioners have not executed the sale deed
and they are not party in the sale deed, therefore, they are not required to pay
the ad-valorem court fee and the trial Court has recorded such finding in
favour of petitioners, which is contrary to the law and, therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioners that the provision of
Court Fees Act Index-2 Article 17(3) is not applicable in the present case as
the document of sale deed dated 09.10.2017 is a void document where the
misrepresentation is both as well as to contents as well as character of the
document, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment
passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raju Yadav Vs.
Smt. Veerwati Yadav & Ors. in MP No.2275/2021 and also placed reliance
on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Harinarayan Vs. Gulabchandra reported in 2011 SCC OnLine MP 595, Sunil
s/o Dev Kumar Radhelia and Ors. Vs. Awadh Narayan and Ors. reported in
2010 SCC OnLine MP 341 and Ambaran s/o Ramaji Kumhar and Ors. Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17670
3 MP-2985-2021
Pramilabai w/o Vishwanath and Ors. reported in 1996 SCC OnLine MP 132
in which it is held that if a plaintiff is not a party of the sale deed, then he is
not liable to pay the ad-valorem Court fee.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that they are not the signatories of the partition deed and therefore,
petitioners are liable to pay the ad-valorem Court fee.
8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the
documents available on record.
9. Order VII Rule 11 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, 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 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."
10. On perusal of the available record, it is apparent that petitioners are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17670
4 MP-2985-2021
not the party of the sale deed, therefore, they are not liable to pay ad-valorem
Court fee. Therefore, considering the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as
well as facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court has
committed error in directing the petitioners to deposit ad-valorem Court fee.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by trial Court is hereby set aside.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
