1. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC was filed by the present petitioner on 21.11.2011. The Court below by the order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P/3) decided the said application.

2. It is contended by Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that a plain reading of this order makes it clear that Court below has given a specific finding that all reliefs of the suit are not properly valued by the plaintiff and proper court-fees is not paid by him and therefore, the plaintiff was directed to properly value his suit and deposit the necessary court-fees. It is contended that by order dated 27.6.2012, the Court again passed an order and opined that presently the plaintiff may pay the fees as mentioned in the said order. Thereafter, petitioner filed another application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC (Annexure P/5). In this application, it is stated by the petitioner that plaintiff has not complied with the order dated 27.6.2012 and therefore, the provisions of Order 7 rule 11 CPC are applicable and therefore, suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed its reply on 9.8.2012 (Annexure P/6). The Court below by the impugned order dated 5.12.2012 rejected the same application by holding that on different dates orders were passed for the purpose of proper valuation of the suit. The issue No. 4 is specifically framed on the question of valuation and therefore, at this stage application deserves to be dismissed.

3. Shri D.D. Bansal further submits that a plain reading of the order dated 26.4.2012 and 27.6.2012 makes it clear that Court below has given specific finding that the valuation by the plaintiff was not proper and therefore, he was required to pay the necessary fees. Since petitioner has not done the same, Court below has erred in passing the impugned order. Shri D.D. Bansal further submits that if the nature of the relief claimed in the plaint is examined, it will be clear that plaintiff is required to pay separate court-fees.

4. Per Contra, Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the other side supported the order and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order which warrants interference under Article 227 by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Court below decided the earlier application filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2011 by order dated 26.4.2012. While deciding the earlier application preferred under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, the Court below opined that valuation made by the plaintiff is not proper and therefore, directed the plaintiff to properly value his suit and pay proper court-fees. The Court below opined that at present the plaintiff may pay certain amount of court-fees which is mentioned in the order itself. It is not in dispute that plaintiff has already paid the said amount. The grievance put forth by Shri Bansal is that considering the nature of relief claimed in the suit, the plaintiff is required to pay higher amount of fees and should have deposited the same. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that on five different dates, the Court has passed orders regarding valuation and payment of court-fees. On 24.9.2012, the Court below opined that it cannot be said that plaintiff presently has not properly valued his suit. Thereafter it was held by the Court below that considering the stand of the parties, issues No. 4 has already been framed. This issue will be decided after recording the evidence of the parties.

7. The order dated 27.6.2012 makes it clear that Court itself provisionally fixed the court-fees and directed the plaintiff to pay the same. Issue, in specific, is framed regarding the valuation and court-fees. The rejection of application of the petitioner is on the ground that grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by deciding the said issue. In the opinion of this Court, the Co