Back
MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Digvijay Singh S/o Late Kan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Prithviraj Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh – Respondent
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
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....
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 fixation of court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the State, and the defendant has no right to move the superior court by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of co....
A revision petition regarding inadequacy of court fee is not maintainable when jurisdiction is not in question, as it is deemed a dispute between the litigant and the Registry.
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.
Court fee issues to be decided during trial; pecuniary jurisdiction upheld despite valuation dispute.
The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the limitations on the defendant's right to move superior courts against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on 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
