The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for determining the valuation of the Suit and the payment of court fees, as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. Heard Sri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.

2. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 256 of 2007, ‘Vijay Dembla vs. Sanjay Dembla and Others by the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Lucknow where the learned Trial Court has decided the issue of Valuation of the Suit i.e. Issue no. 3 and also Issue no.4 relating to payment of enhanced court fee thereon.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner filed a Suit for Declaration of Will executed by his mother and also the mother of the opposite party no.1 and 2, Late Rekha Devi Dembla as void and for the Permanent Injunction injuncting the defendant from interfering in the property in dispute. According to the Plaint, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-02 of the application for interim relief, paragraph 14 mentions the contents of the Will and states such contents as factually incorrect, and paragraph 53 mentions, the valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of court fee. As the relief sought was for Declaration in respect of the Will valuation of which was not possible it was notionally fixed at Rs. 35,000/- upon which maximum court fee Rs. 200/- was paid and for further relief of permanent injunction regarding property in dispute Rs.35,00,000/- was fixed as market value and a maximum court fee of Rs. 500/- was paid. The total valuation of the Suit as per the plaint was Rs.35,35,000/- on which Court Fee of Rs.700/- was paid. Against such a statement being made in the plaint the respondent no.1 filed a Written Statement. While replying to the contents of paragraph 53 of the plaint in paragraph 45 of the Written Statement, it was stated that they were misconceived and wrong and that the Suit filed by the plaintiff for Declaration and Permanent Injunction was not maintainable, and also that the Court Fee had not been properly paid by the plaintiff, and therefore, the Suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that there is no mention of less valuation of the Suit in Para 45 of the Written Statement. The only mention is with regard to Payment of less Court Fee. It has been also argued that Valuation of Suit and Court Fee are two different things and therefore, two issues were framed issue no.3 relating to Valuation of Suit, Issue no.4 relating to Court Fee paid. It has been further argued that the learned trial court relied upon two sheets of papers submitted during the course of the arguments by the counsel for the respondent no.1 describing a large number of properties and giving their valuation arbitrarily. Such sheets of paper were not filed as documents alongwith list of documents relied upon by the respondent in the written statement, they were not filed alongwith the objection. Not being part of the pleadings in the written statement, they could not have been considered by the trial court while passing the order impugned.

5. It has been argued on the basis of an Execution Application filed on 15.05.1998, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-02 to the Application for Interim Relief, that two consent awards dated 18.08.1996 and 17.08.1997 had been given by the Sole Arbitrator with regard to the assets left by father of the revisionist and the respondents no.1 and 2 Late Shri Chander Dembla with relation to family assets, for example, Cash, FDRs, Shares, Investment, etc. and all business and properties in dispute between the parties. As per such Awards for which Execution Application has already been filed by the revisionist, only Rs. 5,00,000/- from the family assets were reserved for Late Rekha Devi Dembla, the Mother and each of the two sons i.e. Vijay Dembla and Sanjay Dembla were required to give Rs. 2,500/- per month to her as pocket expenses. In the said Execut