- (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is heard finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE appellants-plaintiffs have challenged the decree dated 22nd November, 2006 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (herein after referred to as the 'trial Court') in the civil suit filed by the appellants against the respondents, rejecting their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit before the trial Court seeking cancellation of the sale-deed dated 21st January, 2005 executed by the defendant No.16 in favour of the defendant No.17, and for declaration, and the permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. It appears that the office of the trial court had raised certain objections with regard to the insufficient court fees having been paid and the suit have having been under valued by the plaintiffs. The trial Court considering the objections raised by the office and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs rejected the plaint of the appellants-plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC vide impugned order dated 22.11.2006.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sudesh Bansal for the appellants that the plaint of the appellants could not have been rejected by the trial Court either under Clause (b) or (c) of Rule 11 of Order VII in as much as even if the Court had come to the conclusion that the suit was undervalued and the plaintiffs were liable to deposit the deficit court fees as per the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'), the trial Court should have granted time to the plaintiffs to correct valuation of the suit and pay the requisite court fees. According to Mr. Bansal if the suit filed by the plaintiffs is treated as one for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs had paid sufficient court fees as per Section 24 of the said Act, however, if the suit is treated as one for cancellation of the sale deed, the plaintiffs would be required to pay the court fees as per Section 38 of the said Act. He further submitted placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others (2010) 12 SCC 112 that the plaintiffs being not the executants of the sale deed, they were required to file suit only for declaration and not cancellation of the sale deed.;