Ramesh Chandra Nath Sharma vs Sudhanshu Sekhar Nath Sharma & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11631 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramesh Chandra Nath Sharma vs Sudhanshu Sekhar Nath Sharma & Others on 23 December, 2025

             ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                    C.R.P. No.33 of 2023
     An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
                      Procedure, 1908
                            ***

Ramesh Chandra Nath Sharma ... Petitioner

-VERSUS-

Sudhanshu Sekhar Nath Sharma & Others ...

Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Nath Sharma, Advocate

Mr.S.J.Biswal, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K.Nanda, Advocate

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025

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.1983

of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

L.R., Bhubaneswar) against the Opposite Party No.1 (Plaintiff in

the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 arraying the Defendant Nos.2

and 3 of the said suit as the proforma Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3

challenging an order of rejection to his petition dated 11.08.2023

(Annexure-5) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C.,1908

passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), L.R.,

Bhubaneswar.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted

the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of

2017) for filing of the same is that, the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of

2017 was filed by the O.P. No.1 in this revision being the Plaintiff

praying for partition of the suit properties.

3. In the said suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017, the Defendant

No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) filed a petition on dated

04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the

C.P.C., 1908 Praying for rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff

under the following two grounds i.e.:-

(I) the suit for partition filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable, as the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 (father of the Plaintiff) in respect of which, the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 is not maintainable.

(II) The suit of the Plaintiff has been undervalued.

To which, the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) objected as

per Annexure-3 stating that, the grounds raised in the Petition of

the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) for rejection of the

plaint are not entertainable, because, on the basis of his

pleadings, the same are adjudiciable and the same are required

to be decided in the judgment of the suit. For which, the petition

under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the

Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision) is liable to be rejected.

4. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court

rejected to the petition dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) under

Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C., 1908 of the Defendant

No.1 as per the impugned Order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5)

assigning the reasons that,

"the plaint of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 cannot be rejected at its threshold in its preliminary stage".

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.

6. Basing upon the Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d)

of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this

revision) objection against the same filed by the Plaintiff (O.P.

No.1 in this revision), findings and observations made above in

the impugned order 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) by the learned Trial

Court and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both

the sides, the crux of this revision is that,

(i) whether, the suit of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017) for partition is liable to be rejected at its threshold as per Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d) of the C.P.C, 1908 on the ground that, the said suit for partition is not maintainable.

(ii) whether the plaint in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 can be rejected on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner in this revision).

7. So far as, the first ground for rejection of the plaint of the

Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 i.e. the suit for partition of the

Plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that, the suit

properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1

is concerned:-

According to the averments made in the plaint of the Plaintiff, the question i.e. whether the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 or the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence of the Parties, but, the said ground raised by the Defendant No.1 cannot be the basis for rejection of plaint.

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 Smt.Omwati and others Vrs.

Raghubar Singh Yadav and others reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 22 (Allahabad) that,

any question, which requires to be decided on the basis of evidence of Parties, cannot be the basis for rejecting a plaint.

(ii) In a case between B.Sumithra Rao and others Vrs. Sneha and others reported in 2022 (2) Civ.C.C. 505 Karnatak in Para No.11 that,

pure questions of fact involved in the case, the same cannot be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908, for which, the application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. rightly rejected.

(iii) In a case between K.Akbar Ali Vrs. K.Umar Khan and others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 51 that,

plea of the Plaintiff in the plaint discloses triable issues, for which, plaint cannot be rejected at its initial stage.

(iv) In a case between Ugger Singh and others Vrs. Khanda Singh and others reported in 2017 (3) Civ.C.C. 752 (Rajasthan) that,

contentious issue sought to be raised by the Defendant on the basis of the fact set out in the application filed, the same cannot be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

8. When, the above ground raised by the Defendant No.1

(Petitioner in this revision) i.e. whether the suit properties are

his exclusive properties or the said suit properties are the joint

and undivided properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants can be

raised in his written statement for its decision being an issue in

the suit, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law

enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the question

of rejection of plaint of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908 on such ground

raised by the Defendant No.1 does not arise.

9. So far as the 2nd ground raised by the Defendant No.1

(Petitioner in this revision) i.e. for rejection of the plaint of the

Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017 on the ground that, the suit

of the plaintiff was undervalued is concerned:-

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 Jeevan Ram Vrs. LRs of Joraram through its legal representatives and others reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C. 382 (Rajasthan) in Para No.13 that,

The plea raised by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground of valuation can be gone into when defendant raises such a plea in the written statement and if any determination is made against the Plaintiff and Court fee is not paid, then provision of Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the C.PC comes into force. Prior to said stage, it cannot be said that, plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of undervaluation.

(ii) In a case between K.Ramadoss and others Vrs.

E.Stalin reported in 2017 (Suppl.) Civ.C.C 721 (Madras) that,

plaint cannot be straightway rejected on the ground of undervaluation or payment of deficient Court fee, because, only when Court founds that, relief has been undervalued or sufficient court fee not paid, directs the Plaintiff to amend the valuation within a time to be stipulated or to pay the deficient Court fee and if the plaintiff fails to do so, then only question of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c) of the C.P.C would arise.

(iii) In a case between Smt.Hiramani Devi and another Vrs. Sanjay Singh reported in 2009 (3) Civ.C.C. 670 (Allahabad) in Para No.4 that,

Plaint not to be rejected straightway on the ground of under valuation alleged by the Defendant. Because, Plaintiff is to be allowed to rectify the defect and only upon its failure to do so that, the Court is to reject the plaint.

(iv) In a case between Smt. Renu Jain and antoher Vrs. Ms.Gunjan reported in AIR 2012 CC 2917 (Delhi) that,

A partition suit cannot be rejected as per Order 7 Rule 11 b of the C.P.C, on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant.

When, no specific averment in the plaint to the effect that, they (plaintiffs) have been excluded from the possession of the properties in question, but, when, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that, the plaintiffs and Defendants are co-owners of the suit properties and when it is further stated that, "the defendant is in possession of the said properties as a trustee for plaintiffs and the possession of one co-owner shall be deemed to be the possession of all the co-owners, then, the plaintiff shall, thus, be deemed to be also in possession thereof". As such, the contention of the defendant's counsel that, the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is undervalued cannot be sustained.

(v) In a case between Nandakishore Nayak and others Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2003 (1) OLR 473 in Para No.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. So, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 1908 at its threshold on the ground of undervaluation raised by the Defendant.

10. Here, in this revision at hand, when there are averments in

the plaint of the Plaintiff (O.P. No.1 in this revision) that, the suit

properties are the joint and undivided properties of the Plaintiff

and Defendants and in the said suit properties, the Plaintiff has

legitimate share and his share is liable to be partitioned, then at

this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the

ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the plaint of the Plaintiff cannot

be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground of

undervaluation raised by the Defendant No.1.

11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when

both the above grounds raised by the Defendant No.1 (Petitioner

in this Revision) in his petition dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2) for

rejection of the plaint of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908 are not sustainable

under law, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with

the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by

the learned Trial Court through this revision filed by him

(Petitioner) does not arise.

Therefore, there is no merit in the revision filed by the

Petitioner (Defendant No.1). The same must fail.

12. In result, the revision filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1

in the suit vide C.S. No.1983 of 2017) is dismissed on contest,

but, without cost.

13. As such, this revision filed by the Petitioner (Defendant

No.1) is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE Signature High NotCourt Verified of Orissa, Cuttack Digitally Signed 23.12.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Dec-2025 13:51:14