A plaintiff's valuation for court fees is generally accepted unless demonstrably arbitrary, with courts having limited authority to revise such valuations.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Notice upon the opposite parties have been effected. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of O.P. Nos. 9 to 13. However, nobody has appeared on behalf of the rest of the opposite parties and to provide one more opportunity to the rest of the opposite parties the matter was adjourned on 10.01.2025 and today again on repeated calls nobody appeared on behalf of the rest of the opposite parties accordingly, this matter is being heard in absence of rest of the opposite parties.

2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 13.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisioin)-V, Deoghar in M.C.A. No. 268 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 162 of 2017 whereby the learned Civil Judge has been pleased to allow the petition filed by the defendant directing the plaintiffs to deposit ad valorem stamp as per the valuation of the suit property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 162 of 2017 for preliminary decree declaring the share and interest of the plaintiffs to the extent of 4/5^th share in the suit property and for delivery of possession and for appointment of survey knowing commissioner. He further submits that upon notice the defendants/opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement and the matter was sent to mediation before the mediator however, it was not materialized. He then submits that the defendant no. 10 i.e. father of the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C which was registered as M.C.A. No. 268 of 2022 praying therein to direct the plaintiffs to file ad valorem court fee stamp on the exact valuation of the suit property. He further submits that the said petition was allowed by the learned court and direction has been issued to correct the value of the property and to pay ad valorem court fee as per the current valuation of the suit property. He submits that the suit is meant for partition and there is fixed court fee prescribed @ Rs. 250/- at the time of institution and further it has been enhanced @ 1,000/-. He submits that the learned court without appreciating the facts, has passed the order and no reason has been assigned to come to that conclusion. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 13 opposes the prayer and submits that value of the suit property was to the tune of Rs. 3,34,15,800/- however the property was valued to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- only. He submits that the suit property was not properly disclosed in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that once a petition is filed for paying ad valorem court fee the Court is competent to examine the valuation and revise it. He relied in the case of “Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj and Another” reported in 1987 (0) Supreme (SC) 626. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the order. He submits that under the guise of partition suit the intent of prayer is declaratory and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the said order.

6. The plaint is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Relief has been sought for preliminary decree declaring the share and interest of the plaintiffs to the extent of 4/5^th share in the suit property and for delivery of possession over the separately allotted share to the plaintiffs and for appointment of survey knowing commissioner. Thus, prima facie it transpires that the suit was instituted for partition. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 9 to 13 in the case of Smt. Tara Devi (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consi