- (1.) THE plaintiff/first respondent herein filed a suit for declaring the sale deeds document Nos.238, 239 and 276 of 2000 executed by the first defendant/second respondent herein in favour of the second and third defendants/petitioners herein as null and void and unenforceable and would not bind on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction against the first and second defendants from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the first respondent in the suit schedule property.
(2.) THE defendants 2 and 3/petitioner herein raised a contention that the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid and suit has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. According to the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3, the sale deeds have been executed by the second respondent/first defendant. That factum has been explicitly stated in the written statement. But in spite of that, without seeking for cancellation of the sale deeds, a camouflaged prayer has been sought for by the first respondent. The suit filed by the first respondent is not properly valued and it is under valued. If it is properly valued, the trial Court has no jurisdiction and on that ground, they wanted to non-suit the first respondent to lay the plaint in the trial Court. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel on either side passed an order in the suit on 12.4.2005 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners by posting the suit for cross examination of P.W.1. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue before this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions stated above and also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 524. I heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents also.;