By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated
01.07.2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Annopgarh, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Courtâ€), whereby
petitioners’ application dated 23.05.2019 came to be rejected.
Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 3 herein), the petitioners
objected to the valuation of the suit as declared by the plaintiff. In this regard an application dated 23.05.2019 was filed, interalia, stating that the
valuation of the land given in para No.9 of the plaint is not correct.
Petitioners’ aforesaid application was objected to by the plaintiff and the same came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dated
01.07.2019, while holding that earlier application of similar nature (though filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure) has already
been rejected by it on 20.04.2017; an issue in the form of issue No.6 in this regard has been specifically framed; and whether the proper court fee has
been paid or not, can be determined only after decision of issue No.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Court, contended that as per Section 11 of the Rajasthan
Court fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961, the issue regarding court fees is to be determined first and thereafter the other issues are required to be
adjudicated and suit proceeded.
He further argued that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting petitioners’ application, simply being influenced by the fact that his earlier
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
Concededly, the petitioners have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and requested the Court to return the
plaint, alleging that the plaintiff has failed to pay appropriate court fee. The said application filed by the petitioners came to be rejected by the Trial
Court by the order dated 20.04.2017, interalia, observing that the suit in question was a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, in which the plaintiff was not
a party and the valuation of the suit being Rs.3,60,000/-, based on the consideration given in the sale-deed, is triable by the concerned Court.
It is to be noted that while filing the earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners themselves have
contended that the plaintiff has paid court fee of Rs.1250/- only; whereas the same ought to have been Rs.24,275/-, calculated on the consideration
shown in the sale-deed (Rs.3,60,000/-).
Hence, the petitioners themselves having taken a stand that the valuation of the suit ought to have been Rs.3,60,000/-, cannot turn around and say that
the market value of the property in question is higher, by producing other evidence, including conversion order dated 27.01.2014, as mentioned in the
operative portion of the impugned order.
It is clear that the Trial Court has already framed issue No.6 with respect to the valuation of the suit. The market value as well as the court fee can be
determined after adjudication of such suit, of course after leading of relevant evidence.
The petitioners’ application under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 was misconceived and, therefore, the same
was rightly rejected by the Court below.
No interference in the order impugned is warranted. The writ petition is thus dismissed.
The Stay Petition No.10436/2019 also stands dismissed.
