Back
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Arvind Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumari – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this revision petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an Order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts in CS DJ No.638/2021 dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner for rejection of the plaint of Respondent No.1 herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. The Respondent No.1 herein is the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration, partition possession, rendition of accounts, recovery of rent and permanent injunction.
3. The impugned order reveals that the Plaintiff had valued the suit property at Rs.85,00,000/-. The Petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint stating that the suit has not been valued properly and appropriate court fee has not been affixed.
4. It is stated in the application that the father of the Petitioner had executed a Will dated 07.08.2009 in favour of the Petitioner and the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that no cause of action as alleged arise in Delhi and, therefore, suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable. The application further states that the value of the property is more than Rs.5,00,00,000/- and the C
The valuation of the suit property and the court fee to be paid are matters of trial and the defendants shall be at liberty to lead evidence at that stage. While deciding an application under Order V....
The issue of proper court fees being paid is essentially an issue between the plaintiff and the State, and the defendant cannot be termed as an 'aggrieved party' to invoke the revisional jurisdiction....
Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.
In a suit for partition of joint family property, where the plaintiffs claim joint possession, a fixed Court fee of Rs.200.00 is payable under Sec 34(2) of APCF and SC Act.
A defendant must file a written statement to dispute the plaintiff's valuation; reliance on external valuation certificates by the court is an improper basis for rejecting a plaint.
The direction to correct the valuation under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 is not revisable under Section 115 CPC.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the valuation of a suit property in a suit for recovery of possession from a trespasser should be based on the relief sought in the plaint....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
