Jaswant Singh vs Santosh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9074 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5818/2022

Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Satyadev @ Chattu Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Kumhar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 11 M.L., Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Santosh W/o Shri Lal Chand D/o Shri Satya Dev @ Chattu Ram, By Caste Kumhar, R/o 5 M.l., Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

2. Anju @ Anjana W/o Shri Prithvi Ram @ Chhatu Ram, By Caste Kumhar, Farsewala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar.

3. Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar, By Caste Kumhar, R/o 11 M.l., Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

4. Vimla W/o Late Shri Bhupendra Kumar, By Caste Kumhar, R/o 11 M.l., Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

5. Mamta Rani W/o Late Shri Sanjy Kumar W/o Shri Pawan Kumar, By Caste Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 10, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sohan Lal Jain



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

12/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant

being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by

the Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the appellate court') whereby the appellate court

while partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiffs

namely Santosh and Anju has set aside the order dated

08.09.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2,

(2 of 3) [CW-5818/2022]

Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') and

remanded the matter to it for passing a fresh order strictly in

accordance with law.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs have

filed a suit with a prayer to declare the gift deeds in relation to the

land in question as null and void and non-est against them.

The petitioner-defendant Jaswant Singh has moved two

applications, one under Section 11(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees

and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act

of 1961') and another under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VII

Rule 10 CPC while claiming that the respondent-plaintiffs have not

paid the appropriate court fees as per Section 24(b) of the Act of

1961, therefore, they may be directed to deposit the appropriate

court fees and if they failed to do so, the suit filed by them be

rejected.

The trial court vide order dated 08.09.2021 has partly

allowed the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner-defendant

Jaswant Singh and returned the suit to the plaintiffs for filing the

same before the concerned court while holding that as per the

valuation mentioned on the gift deeds, the trial court has no

peculiar jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent-plaintiffs

Santosh and Anju have preferred an appeal before the appellate

court and the appellate court while partly allowing the said appeal

has set aside the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the trial court

and remanded the case to the trial court.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the material available on record, it appears that the

trial court while deciding the applications filed by the petitioner-

(3 of 3) [CW-5818/2022]

defendant Jaswant Singh has not taken into consideration the

provisions of Section 7 read with Section 24 of the Act of 1961.

The appellate court has simply remanded the matter to the trial

court while observing that the trial court has not taken into

consideration the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 24 of

the Act of 1961 while deciding the said applications and without

recording the finding that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs

is not covered under Section 7 read with Section 24 of the Act of

1961 and has passed the order dated 05.09.2021.

Having carefully gone through the orders passed by both the

courts below, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by

the appellate court as the trial court has not taken into

consideration the provisions of Section 7 and Section 24 of the Act

of 1961 and has also not even recorded any finding that those

provisions are not at all relevant in this case.

Hence, this writ petition being bereft of force is hereby

dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

25-AjaySingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)