Orissa High Court
Mina Kumari Swain vs Akshaya Kumar Singh & ... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.R.P. No.17 of 2025
An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908
***
Mina Kumari Swain ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Akshaya Kumar Singh & ... Opposite Parties
Others
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Sarangi,Sr.Advocate
Mr.Sudeep Kumar Sarangi,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : None
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 11.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 17.04.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C, 1908 has been
filed by petitioner (defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1101 of
2016 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge,
Bhubaneswar) challenging the impugned order of rejection to her
petition under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) of the C.P.C.,1908
passed on dated 01.03.2025 in C.S. No.1101 of 2016 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar.
2. The petitioner of this revision is the defendant No.1 before
the Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.1101 of 2016, wherein,
the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 of this revision are the plaintiffs and O.P.
Nos.3 to 7 are the defendant Nos.2 to 6.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.1101 of 2016 against
the defendants is a suit for declaration of title and recovery of
possession.
4. In the said suit vide C.S. No.1101 of 2016, the defendants
filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) of the C.P.C.,
1908 praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs on the
ground of under valuation and non-payment of adequate court
fees stating that, there are public documents, which show much
higher valuation of the suit properties than the valuation made
by the plaintiffs in their plaint. For which, the plaint of the
plaintiffs is liable to be rejected.
To which, the plaintiffs objected by filing their written
objection stating that, the matter relating to valuation of the suit
properties and the payment of Court fees is a matter between the
plaintiff and Court. The defendants have no business for
interfering with the same. If it is found after trial that, the suit is
not properly valued, then, as per the order of the Court, the
plaintiffs shall pay the required court fees. For which, their plaint
can never be rejected on the above grounds raised by the
defendants.
5. After hearing from both the sides, the Trial Court rejected to
the petition under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) of the C.P.C., 1908
of the defendants as per Order dated 01.03.2025 assigning the
reasons that,
"the matter regarding valuation is a mixed question
of law and fact, which can only be determined
during the course of trial, before that, the trial court
did not find any reason to reject the plaint of the
plaintiffs on the ground of under valuation."
6. On being dissatisfied with the said order of rejection to the
petition of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c) of the
C.P.C., the defendant No.1 challenged the same by filing this
revision being the petitioner against the plaintiffs arraying them
(O.P. Nos.1 and 2 and also arraying other defendants as O.P.
Nos.3 to 7).
7. I have heard only from the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner (defendant No.1), as none appeared from the side of the
plaintiffs (O.P. Nos.1 and 2) to participate in the hearing of this
revision.
8. In order to assail the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, the
learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant Nos.1) relied upon
the decision reported in 2024 (2) Civ.C.C 067 and 2014
(Supp.1) OLR 165.
9. It is the settled propositions of law that, the object of
payment of Court fees in a suit is not to arm a litigant with a
weapon of technicality against his opponent, but, to secure
revenue for the benefit of the State. The valuation made by the
plaintiff to his/her suit is to be accepted by the Court, when such
valuation is not demonstratively low or when the same is not
arbitrary or unreasonable.
A revision against an order of rejection to the petition of the
defendant on the ground of valuation lies, only when, the
challenge to the suit by the defendants touches the jurisdiction of
the Court, because, the defendant has his/her right to raise
objection on valuation of the suit, when, the same affects the
jurisdiction of the Court and on such objection of the defendant,
if the Court finds that, the suit should have been filed in a court
of higher pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit is not maintainable
in that Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, then, the
court should return the plaint to the plaintiff to present the same
in the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try it.
10. The question relating to court fees is a matter between the
plaintiff and Court only. Legislature did not intent to give any
advantage to the defendant or defendants for non-payment of
adequate Court fees by the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A defendant is
entitled to bring the same to the notice of the Court that, the
amount of Court fees paid by the plaintiff is not in accordance
with law, but, the defendant cannot succeed in the suit only on
that ground.
A plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of non-payment of
adequate Court fees, unless the trial Court is concluded in
ascertaining the exact amount to be paid by the plaintiff,
because, the same is a matter, which depends on evidence of the
parties during trial of the suit.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the
following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Prafulla Chandra Das & Another Vrs. Anem
Bhengra @ Munda & Others reported 2009 (II) CLR 1031 that,
the valuation made by the plaintiff has to be accepted by the court,
but, where, such valuation under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act,
1870 is demonstratively undervalued and is arbitrary and unreasonable,
the Court must direct the plaintiff to correct it.
A revision against such order regarding valuation lies only when it
touches the jurisdiction of the Court. The defendant has his right to raise
objection on the valuation of the suit, when it effects the jurisdiction of the
Court and the matter is to be adjudicated upon under Section 12 of the
Court Fees Act, 1870. The decision so taken by the trial Court shall be
final. If the learned lower Court finds, the suit should have been filed in a
Court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaint should be returned to the
plaintiff to be presented in the Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
(ii) In a case between Sribatsa Panda Vrs. Sitaram Padhi reported in
ILR 1964 Cuttack 886 that,
The Court fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit
of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to
obstruct the trial of an action. The defendant cannot make any grievance
by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the
question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court fee on his plaint,
whether proper court fee is paid on the plaint is primarily a question
between the plaintiff and the State.
(iii) In a case between Bharpoor Singh & another Vrs. Lachhman
Singh reported in 2017 (I) Civ.L.T. 457 (P & H) that,
the Court fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of
the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to
obstruct the trial of an action. Question involving Court fee would be
between the plaintiff and the State and it would hardly grant any right to
the contesting parties to challenge the alleged inadequacy of Court Fee
either paid or to be paid by the plaintiff.
(iv) In a case between Nandakishore Nayak and two others Vrs. State of
Orissa and two others reported in 2003 (1) OLR 473 in Para 11 that,
valuation of a suit and payment of Court fees is a matter between
the plaintiff and the Court and the defendants have no say in that respect.
(v) In a case between Raj Kumar Kashyap Vrs. Special Judge, C.B.I
Court No.1 reported in 2017 (Supp.) Civ.C.C. 633 (Allhabad) that,
the matter relating to valuation of the proceedings and
determination of Court fee is a matter between plaintiffs and the Court and
once the issue has been adjudicated by the competent Court, the
defendant-petitioner has no locus to challenge such determination.
(vi) In a case between M/s. Rajkumar Vishandas & Sons Vrs. M/s.
Rajkumar Vishandas reported in 2022 (4) Civ.C.C. 632 (Rajasthan) in
Para 18 that,
plaint cannot be rejected without following procedure prescribed
under Order 7 Rule 11(c) and issue of deficit Court fee can be decided
only after framing of issues and leading evidence by parties.
(vii) In a case between Smt. Santosh Kumari & Another Vrs. Sukh
Dev Singh decided in a Civ. Revision No.555 of 2014 that,
the court fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of
the State and a contesting party cannot used it as a tool to obstruct the trial.
It is difficult to understand what grievance the defendant can make by
seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction on the question, whether the
plaintiff has paid adequate court fee on his plaint. Whether, proper court
fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the
State. Even if, the defendant believes honestly that, proper court fee has
not been paid by the plaintiff, still he has no right to move the superior
court against the order adjudging payment of Court fee payable on the
plaint.
(viii) In a case between Samir Kumar Dasgupta & Another Vrs.
Bansidhara Behera & Another reported in 2008 (II) CLR 227 that,
concerning the valuation and payment of Court fees, the plaintiffs
are the dominus litus. They have to value their suit. As per the said
principle, the plaintiffs have valued the suit and if the defendants are
disputing the said valuation, they, can adduce evidence to that effect and
that has to be decided later on at the time of hearing of the suit and while
disposing of the suit, if the plaintiffs are found to be liable to pay more
Court fees, the Court can pass order for realization of proper Court Fees
from them.
11. Here, in this revision at hand, when, the defendants filed
petition for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiffs on the ground
of improper valuation of the plaint and non-payment of proper
Court Fees before commencement of the Trial of the suit and
when as per law, the matter relating to the valuation of the suit
and payment of court Fees is a matter between the plaintiff and
Court, but, the defendant has no locus standi to raise the said
question at the initial stage of the suit and when the dispute
regarding the valuation and payment of Court Fees can only be
decided after appreciating the evidence of the parties at the end
of the trial of the suit and when, the probable higher valuation of
the suit raised by the defendants cannot oust the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the trial court, then at this juncture by applying
the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex
Court in the ratio of the decisions referred to (supra), I find no
justification to interfere with the order of rejection to the petition
under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c) of the C.P.C., 1908 of the
defendants passed by the Trial Court dated 01.03.2025 through
this revision filed by the defendant No.1.
For which, the decision relied upon by the petitioner
(defendant No.1) to assail the impugned order indicated in Para
No.8 of this judgment has become inapplicable to this revision at
hand as per law and facts as discussed above.
12. When it is held that, there is no justification under law for
making interference with the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court through this revision filed by the petitioner (defendant
No.1), then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the
same through this revision filed by the petitioner (defendant
No.1) does not arise.
Therefore, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioner
(defendant No.1). The same must fail.
13. In result, the revision filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1)
is dismissed on merit, but, without cost.
14. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
17.04.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
