The plaintiff's valuation of the suit property should not be arbitrary and can be corrected by the court if necessary.

Vivek Agarwal, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior, whereby application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 r.w.s. 151 of C.P.C., has been partly accepted.

2. Brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction valuing the suit at Rs.8,05,000/- and has sought relief of partition in the suit property. An application was filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 r.w.s. 151 of C.P.C., mentioning therein that as per the Collector guidelines issued for valuation of the property in the year 2013-14, valuation of the properties having RCC roof situated at Bharat Talkies Road is Rs.48,000/- per square meter and accordingly the plaintiffs are required to value their suit and pay the Court-fee since they have sought partition of the suit property. It has come on record that the plaintiffs have not filed any reply and have orally opposed this application.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that it is settled principle of law that while deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 , only plaint averments needs to be seen and no documents filed by the defendants can be looked into. Reliance has been placed to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust as reported in AIR 2012 SC 3912 and it is submitted that the Trial Court erred in taking into consideration the market guidelines produced by the defendants and has thus, erred in partly allowing the application directing the plaintiff to correct the suit valuation as per the guidelines failing which it has been mentioned that suit may be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 09.05.2012 passed in Civil Revision No.339/2011 in the case of Smt. Nirmala Rao & Another v. Smt. Laxmi Bai & Others.

5. In the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust as reported in AIR 2012 SC 3912, after referring to the relevant provision, it has been held that-

"In order to consider an application under Order 7, Rule 11 , the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage of the suit."

6. But in the case of Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar as reported in 1980(1) SCC 616, it has been held that-

"The plaintiff is entitled to give a tentative valuation if in spite of his genuine efforts, he is unable to make out an exact valuation, but plaint is liable to be rejected in case of deliberate undervaluation."

7. Similarly, in the case of Sujir Keshav Nayak v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak as reported in 1992(1) SCC 731, it has been held that-

"In suit filed before Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, defendant has right to raise objection as to undervaluation of the suit which has to be decided as preliminary issue by the Court. It has also been held that if Court, on being prima-facie satisfied that valuation of suit was arbitrary, can direct the suit to be properly valued."

It has been further held that-

"In suits for accounting or for dissolution of partnership and accounting filed in Courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction the plaintiff must take every care to disclose valuation which is not arbitrary, as the plaint is liable to be rejected on objection of the defendants, but in suits of such nature, filed before Courts of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff can be accepted as correct. This however, does not mean that Court's power to examine the correctness of valuation is taken away. If on perusal of plaint, the Court is prima-facie satisfied that the plaintiff has not been fair and valued the suit or relief arbitrarily it is no