Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by defendants no.1 to 5-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') challenging order dated 16.09.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby their two applications have been dismissed. First application filed on 06.06.2011 was under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC'), praying for declaring the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 as inadmissible in evidence as it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. Second application was filed on 06.06.2011 under Sections 10, 11, 35 and 40 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for rejection of the suit on the ground of willful and deliberate undervaluation of the suit and failure to pay requisite court fee.

2. Plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit in the court of Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, inter alia, praying for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 and for injunction against petitioners. Along-therewith, they also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. In the suit, plaintiff-respondents also prayed for a direction to petitioners to construct gravel roads and pillars and to get numbering done and thereafter execute sale-deed and transfer physical possession of the plots to them. While there were four purchasers to the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 i.e. plaintiff-respondents no.2, 3 and 4, but respondent no.5 herein, who was also a co-purchaser, did not file the suit but he has been included in the array of respondents as respondent no.10. Apart from aforesaid, it was also prayed in the plaint that decree of partition be passed in favour of plaintiff to the extent of 80% of their share and possession thereof be restored to them. In alternative, it was prayed that if the court does not deem it appropriate to grant that relief, decree of specific performance be passed for execution of sale-deed for the entire land, wherefor the plaintiffs were prepared to pay the entire sale consideration and the expenses of the stamp duty payable on registration of the sale-deed. In view of this alternative prayer, plaintiff was in any case required to pay court fee on full sale consideration and accordingly value the suit.

3. Defendants, in aforesaid application filed by them, maintained that suit was liable to be rejected with costs on the ground of willful and deliberate undervaluation of the suit by the plaintiff-respondents. As per agreement to sell, total value of sale consideration was Rs.4,60,57,179.70, but the plaintiff-respondents have actually valued the suit for a sum of Rs.3,68,46,000/- and have accordingly paid the court fee. While the plaintiff-respondents have prayed in the suit for decree of partition but they have failed to value the suit on that count and have paid no court fee for the same. Alternative prayer in the application was made that issue with regard to payment of court fee be adjudicated first based on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials contained in the statement filed under Section 10, before proceeding to hear the suit or application for temporary injunction on merits.

4. Defendant-petitioners in written statement filed by them on 01.09.2011, also agitated the issue of deficiency in payment of stamp duty on agreement to sell as also deliberate undervaluation of the suit and payment of insufficient court fee. The defendant-respondent no.5, who was defendant no.10 to the suit, also filed written statement on 01.09.2011 specifically admitting that sale deed could not be registered solely on account of failure of the plaintiff-respondents to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.10.2010 and other omissions, including their failure to pay remaining amount of sale consideration wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document