Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Shashi And Others on 8 March, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
CLR No.13 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the
revisionists.
The revisionists to the present revision have
put a challenge to the impugned order dated
09.12.2021 which was passed by the court of IInd
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun
in Original Suit No.576 of 2017 Sunita Gupta vs.
Shashi and others, whereby the learned trial court
had rejected the application which was preferred by
the defendant/revisionist herein, by invoking the
provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
C.P.C.
Consequently, holding thereby that looking
to the nature of the suit and the relief sought for
with regards to the declaration of a will as detailed
in the relief clause to the suit i.e. dated 01.12.2014,
was sufficiently valued and consequently the court
fees which has been paid by the plaintiff on the
same has been held to be appropriately paid
There are various facets, which has been
argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists
but this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that
for the purposes of invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the
C.P.C., the defendant in a suit has got a very limited
rights, because a decision in relation to the Order 7
Rule 11 of C.P.C., would be inter-se between the
court and the plaintiff itself until and unless, if the
determination on the issue is made by the Court
holding the suit to be under value and as a
consequence of determination, there too on that
issue, if it effects the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court, it is then only the limited scope, which the
defendant can invoke for filing of an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., which is not
the case of the defendant/revisionists, in their
application too which was filed under Order 7 Rule
11 of C.P.C.
Apart from it even if remotely, it is thought
of that the revisionists' application under Order 7
Rule 11 of the C.P.C., to be a question to the
wrongful valuation of the suit or payment of a
deficient Court fee is taken into consideration that
could have been only done, if there was a
comparative analysis or the pleadings raised by the
defendants, in the application, that according to
their wisdom what would have been an appropriate
Court fees based on valuation of suit, which would
be payable on suit, where a document is being
sought to be declared as to be null and void.
Hence for the reasons aforesaid and having
gone through the impugned judgment under
challenge before this Court, it cannot be ruled out
that the recourse adopted by the defendant by filing
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.,
do not fall to be within the ambit and scope of
Order 7 Rule 11 B or C of C.P.C., because it is
exclusively the prerogative of the Court to
determine the aforesaid questions and hence the
application was nothing but maliciously intended to
install and delay the proceedings of the suit.
Consequently, the revision lacks merit and
the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
08.03.2022
Arti
