Birendra Kumar, J
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. By impugned order dated 02.08.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.22/2010 (59/2010) (Dr. Randeep Dhillon & Anr. Vs. Harmeet Singh Dhillon & Ors.), the learned Court below has rejected the prayer of the defendant-petitioners to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The petitioners had taken ground before the learned Court below that the suit had been undervalued and the suit apparently appears to be a collusive one. The learned Court below had rejected both the grounds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that under Sections 11 and 24 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff is bound to value the suit as directed therein, failing which, the plaint was fit to be rejected. Moreover, one of the defendants, Harmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner No.1 herein) was added as a party, showing him to be of unsound mind, through his guardian late Shri Surjeet Singh; this assertion was false and result of collusion between the plaintiff and other defendants.
5. The provision of order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which relates to rejection of plaint on certain conditions, reads as follows:-
“11. 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 from 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.”
6. Evidently, the case is not covered under clause(a) as the plaint discloses cause of action. The petitioners have hammered on the ground (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. In the case on hand, the Court had not directed the plaintiff-respondents to correct the valuation, therefore, this ground was also not available for rejection of plaint. Other grounds have not been agitated. The claim of “collusive suit” would be considered only after evidence adduced on the issue raised. The petitioners had not filed written statement in the suit, therefore, there was no stage for hearing and casting of issues to be decided.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contends that no case for rejection of the plaint is there, as the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not made out.
8. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in fact, some other person has filed written statement, without knowledge and authorization of the petitioners showing that the written statement was on behalf of the petitioners.
9. Evidently, no case for rejection of plaint is made out. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, if the petitioners file their written statement and raise a question of undervaluation, the trial court would frame a separate issue and decide the same according to law.
10. This Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioners to decide the issue of undervaluation as preliminary issue, for the reason that there is a specific provision under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC regarding issues which can be decided as preliminary issue and issue of court fees does not come within the ambit.
11. The petitioners would be at liberty to file separate written statement.
12. Accordingly the instant revision petition stands dismissed.
