Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashThe challenge in this revision petition preferred by petitioners-defendants Nar Singh & Ashok sons of Singh Ram
(for brevity ""the defendants""), is to the impugned order dated 14.1.2014 (Annexure P4), by virtue of which, the trial Court dismissed their
application (Annexure P2) for rejection of plaint of respondents-plaintiffs Desbir and others (for short ""the plaintiffs"") under Order 7 Rule 11 read
with Section 151 CPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep
consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
2. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the plaintiffs were required to affix the ad valorem Court fee on the plaint, so the trial Court
committed the legal mistake to dismiss the application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, is neither tenable nor
the observations of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera and Others, and this Court in case Dr. Ashok Kumar
Goyal v. Arya Mittar and others (2007-1)145 PLR 798 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was ruled that where the
plaintiff filed the suit regarding the property situated within the municipal limits or abadi deh, then, he is required to pay the ad valorem Court fee.
There can hardly be any dispute with respect to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in
the instant controversy for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
3. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit (Annexure P1) seeking relief of possession of land measuring 3 kanals
0 marla against the defendants in the manner depicted here-in-above. Taking into consideration the contents of the plaint, the trial Court came to a
prima facie conclusion that the suit land is Gairmumkin Bara and does not fall within the municipal limits or abadi deh. Even if the defendants have
raised illegal construction over the land of plaintiffs, then, the party seeking relief is not required to pay the ad valorem Court fee on super structure
raised on the agricultural land at this stage. In case, the defendants are able to prove by adducing cogent evidence at any subsequent stage that the
land in litigation falls within the municipal limits, in that eventuality, the Court would naturally decide the question of Court fee at the final conclusion
of the trial and would ask the plaintiffs to pay the deficiency of Court fee (if any).
4. Moreover, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P2) of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, through the
medium of impugned order (Annexure P4), which, in substance, is as under (para 4):--
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully. In the present case, it is necessary to state at the
out set that at the time of adjudication of application u/o 7 rule II CPC it is settled law that contents of the plaint are to be seen and court cannot
look into the defence of the defendant or the stand taken in the written statement. In the present case, it is case of the plaintiff/respondents that the
suit land is Gair Mumkin Bara and does not come within the Municipal limits or Abadi Deh which is even not denied by the defendants. It is further
stated that if the defendants/applicant raises the construction over the suit land subsequently then the party seeking the relief is to value the land and
not the superstructure constructed by the defendant. Reliance is placed on Kewal Kishore Vs. Hamad Ahmad Khan and Others, On the other
hand, Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera and Others, ''as well as Dr. Ashok Kumar v. Arya
Mittal Ors 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 798. In the present case, the relief of possession is claimed with respect to the suit land which exists in shape of
agriculture lands and admittedly is not within the Municipal limits/Abadi Deh. Therefore, accordingly, amended court fee Act as applicable to State
of Haryana, Court fee is not required to be affixed on the market value of the suit land. Accordingly, this court is of the view that present
application is devoid on merits. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.
5. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. Such order,
containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of superintendence power of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, unless & until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P4) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of
the case.
6. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the light of aforesaid
reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioners-defendants is hereby dismissed as such.
