Cav. No. 67/2012

Respondent has put in appearance. Caveat has become infructuous. Dismissed.

C.R.P. 10/2012 and CM Nos. 1080-1082/2012

1. The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 12.12.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is only restricted to the fact that although admittedly the plaintiff in terms of the averments made in the plaint was claiming 1/7th share in the suit property, her right to pay the Court fee was admittedly on her 1/7th share only but for the purposes of jurisdiction, the valuation of the entire suit property had to be taken and not the valuation of her share alone and the Trial Court holding otherwise has committed an illegality.

3. Reliance by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 44 (1991) DLT 528 titled as Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja v. R.P. Sharma, as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court in CS (OS) No. 2546/2010 titled as Anu v. Suresh Verma, delivered on 12.7.2011. There is no doubt that valuation for the purpos