IMPORTANT POINT
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 of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been filed by the petitioners-defendants against the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Case No. 8/2020 whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant no. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in law while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, the respondents-plaintiffs have not paid the requisite court fees in accordance with the valuation of the suit property and thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has completely ignored this aspect of the matter. Thus, it was prayed that the present revision petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC be allowed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

4. As is the settled position of law, at the time of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, only the averments in the plaint are material. As per the plaintiffs, the suit property is in joint possession and joint ownership of all the parties to the suit and thus, the court fees of Rs 220/- has been paid accordingly. Now, the issue as to whether court fees was proper or not or whether all parties are in joint possession and joint ownership of the disputed property or not are question of fact and law, which can be decided only after recording of evidence of both the parties.

5. In Babulal vs. Bhanwar Lal and Others, MANU/RH/1488/2023, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has in Para 10 held that:

“10. So far as the valuation of the suit is concerned, the suit was valued by the plaintiffs for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the court fee of Rs. 10,125/- was paid qua the same. Regarding the ground of the same being deficit is concerned, it is the settled position of law that a plaint cannot ipso facto be rejected only on the basis of an averment been made by the defendant to the said effect. Law provides for the Court to direct the plaintiff to correct the valuation if it finds the same to be undervalued and further to direct to make the deficit court fee good if it finds the same to be insufficiently stamped. The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the market value of the disputed portion is Rs. 1,50,000/- and the payable court fee on the said valuation would be Rs. 10,125/- which is being paid. The issue whether the market price as averred by the plaintiff is correct or not, could also have been decided only after perusal of the documents, if any, placed on record by the defendant to prove the contrary. Obviously, the same could not have been done by the Court below within the purview of VII Rule 11, CPC. Hence, the conclusion of the Court that it could be decided only after an issue being framed, is totally in consonance with the governing law.”

6. Similarly, in Sharda Devi vs. Iqbal Singh and Others, MANU/RH/0310/2015, it has been categorically held by this Court that:

“12. As far as question of court fees is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of adjudication of an application under Order 7 Rule 11, a mini Trial for the purposes of ascertaining the correct valuation of land in dispute, is not warranted. Court fee is determined on the basis of pleadings made in the plaint and not the defence set up by the defendants, Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, clause (b) and (c) comes into play, when upon the meaningful reading of the plaint itself, the Court reaches a conclu