Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) The application under Article 227 of the Contitution of India being C.O. 1920 of 2016 has been directed assailing the Order No. 9 dated 21st March, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 8 of 2015 (Mokarim Naskar and Ors. v. R. J. Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.) . The impugned order arose out of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitted by the opposite party no. 1 as defendant no. 1 in the suit seeking rejection of the plaint precisedly on the ground that the valuation of the suit was improper and with a view to avoid required court fees, the suit was under-valued, and, further contending that since in the suit, the relief of cancellation of deed dated 23rd December, 2013 was claimed as a consequential relief and virtually in the garb of recovery of possession section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1970 would be attracted and not Section 7(iv)(b), so far as payment of court fees.
(2.) Learned trial court favouring the application under reference directed the petitioners/plaintiffs, who shall be called on hereafter as the petitioners, to pay the requisite court fees within the stipulated period, failing which the plaint would be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-payment of requisite court fees.
(3.) Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate, being assisted by Mr. Mondal, Ms. Maity and Mr. Singha Roy, for the petitioners/plaintiffs, invited attention of this court to the text of the plaint appended with the supplementary affidavit, particularly to paragraph 8 of the plaint. He argued that the prayer portion in the plaint has three components - first one is for declaration of title on the strength of registered deed of gift dated 1st August, 2003 said to have been executed by Yusuf Ali Naskar; the second limb of prayer is that the said Yusuf Ali Naskar did never execute any deed dated 23rd December, 2013 as allegedly standing in favour of the opposite party no. 1 which is claimed to be an outcome of false personation and accordingly, the same has been sought for as void, and, in view of the text of the plaint, the third limb comes in this way that the person take whose name the alleged deed dated 23rd December, 2013 was said to have been executed was not the predecessors of the petitioners. Mr. Bagchi relied upon the decisions reported in 85 CWN 606 (Ranjanibala Rakshit v. Biswanath Rakshit and Ors.) and (2016)4 WBLR (Cal) 553 ( Umapada Jati and Ors. v. Manas Jati and Ors.) . Submitted, that since the petitioners have sought for declaration of title over the subject property on the cause of action disclosed in the suit, the court fees as deposited under Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act is just and proper. Upon such submission praying for setting aside the order impugned, he prayed to allow the revisional application. ;