- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 25.11.11 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in civil suit No. 132/11 (52/11) whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-defendant No.1 had filed the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (original plaintiffs) had not paid up the sufficient court fees and that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC, 112, the learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case the plaintiffs have specifically prayed for the prayer for cancellation of the registered sale-deed and, therefore, the plaintiffs were required to pay the court fees on the market value of the property as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Court Fees Act. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the impugned order passed by the trial court it appears that the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint has been rejected by the trial court by observing that the plaintiffs had paid up the requisite court fees and also on the ground that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So far as the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is concerned, the plaint could be rejected under clause (d) thereof only when the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by any law, or under clause (b) thereof 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. As such the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the suit was barred by any law, merely reading the averments or statements made in the plaint. The plaint also could not be rejected under clause (b) of Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, as there was no order passed by the court requiring the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the requisite court fees. Under the circumstances, the petitioner-defendant No.1 having failed to make out any ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. However, there is some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief claimed in the suit was undervalued by the plaintiffs inasmuch as the plaintiffs have prayed for the declaration and cancellation of the sale-deed in question. Therefore, the observation made by the trial court that the plaintiffs have paid the sufficient court fees does not appear to be correct one, in the light of the decision of Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, of course that will be matter of evidence. Hence it is directed that the petitioner-respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to raise the said contention with regard to the payment of the insufficient court fees before the trial court at the time of the trial of the suit and the trial court shall decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observation made it in the impugned order. In that view of the matter and with the aforesaid direction, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;