The court emphasized the importance of complying with court fee requirements and directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a specified timeline and impose costs for unwarranted applications.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant first appeal has been preferred by defendant No.7, feeling aggrieved by rejection of his counter claim vide order dated 9.5.2022 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because of non payment of Court fee (as required to be paid under Section 24(b) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961), despite directions issued by the trial Court vide order dated 7.3.2022 in respect of seeking declaration of ownership for plot No.F-54, Bani Park, Jaipur.

2. Heard counsel for appellant and respondent-plaintiff, perused the impugned order and relevant record.

3. It appears that respondent No.1-plaintiff has instituted civil suit on 7.8.2010 seeking partition of the property bearing House No.F-54, Bani Park, Jaipur alleging inter alia that suit property was left by late Shri Harnam Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur. It appears that plaintiff claimed his 1/5th share though it has come on record that Harnam Singh was survived by his five sons and one daughter. Plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2 and 3 are four sons, defendant No.4 is daughter of fifth deceased son Rajendra Singh and defendants No.5 and 6 are two daughters of deceased daughter Smt. Jaswant Kaur daughter of Harnam Singh.

4. It has revealed from the record that appellant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dated 12.10.2018 claiming that during course of trial of suit, he has purchased the share of defendant No.6 through registered sale deed dated 16.11.2015 and has entered into agreements to sale from other defendants co-sharers. Appellant claims to purchase half of 1/6th share of defendant No.6 Smt. Ranjeet Kaur through sale deed. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2018. Appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.827/2019. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 2.12.2021 only on the basis of that appellant has purchased the share of defendant No.6 through registered sale deed, therefore, appellant was allowed to be made party to this suit for partition. Thus, it is apparent that appellant-defendant No.7 steps in the shoe of defendant No.6. Since the suit for partition was pending since 7.8.2010, therefore, the High Court also issued directions to the trial Court to decide the suit preferably within a period of six months.

5. Thereafter, appellant has been impleaded as defendant No.7 in the present suit and defendant No.7 submitted his written statement along with counter claim on 16.2.2022. From perusal of order dated 2.12.2021 passed by the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.827/2019, he was impleaded as party on the basis of purchasing the share of defendant No.6 through registered sale deed and thus, it is obvious that defendant No.7 steps in shoe of defendant No.6, yet the defendant No.7 in his counter claim, claimed relief of declaration of ownership of the entire suit property bearing Plot No.F-54, Bani Park, Jaipur. However, this is the point to be considered by the trial Court while deciding the counter claim finally.

6. At this stage, plaintiff moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 21.2.2022 and it was pointed out that defendant No.7 has not valued the valuation of suit property bearing plot No.F-54, Bani Park, Jaipur nor has paid any Court fees, for the purpose of claiming ownership over the property. This application was replied by appellant-defendant No.7.

7. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 7.3.2022 decided this application. The trial Court, in its order dated 7.3.2022 has observed that defendant No.7 in his counter claim has made a prayer for declaration of ownership of suit property and has sought for a consequential relief for permanent injunction alleging his possession with defendant No.1, therefore, he should pay Court fees as per the provision of Section 24 (b) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. This order dated 7.3.2022 and directions to assess the valuation of suit property and to pay Court fees as indicated in Secti