ORDER

1. The order dated 1.10.2020 and 1.12.2020 passed by civil Judge Class-I, Morena in Civil Suit No.91A/2020, have been called in question by way of present revision, whereby the Court below has partially dismissed the applications under Order 7 rule 11 (B)(D) CPC and under Order 7 rule 11(C)(D) CPC filed by the present petitioner/ defendant.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 91A/2020 before Civil Judge Class-1, Morena, District Morena, with the pleadings that the respondents/plaintiffs are the Bhumiswami and possession holder of the disputed property. Earlier, disputed property was in the ownership of the mother of the respondents/plaintiffs. After the death of respondents/plaintiffs' mother, the respondents/plaintiffs and their father became the registered owner of the property in question. After the death of father of the respondents/plaintiffs on 20.1.2019, respondents/plaintiffs became the owner and possession holder of the disputed property. According to the petitioner/defendant, she purchased the property from the father of the respondents/plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 23.12.2014 challenging which the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/ defendant.

3. The petitioner/defendant has specifically raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the suit filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is illegal and infructuous. The valuation in the suit is wrong and is insufficient and the respondents/plaintiffs also did not pay the sufficient Court fee as per valuation in the suit. Therefore, applications under Order 7 rule 11 (B)(D) CPC and Under Order 7 rule 11(C)(D) had been filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejecting the plaint being not maintainable. The trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner/ defendant. Hence, this revision petition is preferred.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the applications under Order 7 rule 11 (b)(d) of CPC and under Order 7 rule 11 (c) (d) of CPC were filed by the defendant with the pleading that the relief claimed was not valued and on being asked by the Court below to correct the valuation within time, the plaintiffs failed to do so as well as the respondents/plaintiffs did not pay the sufficient Court-fee as per valuation in the suit, despite the Court below dismissed the applications filed by the defendant. It is further submitted that impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-2 are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be quashed. Respondents/plaintiffs cannot value the suit arbitrarily. Valuation of the suit, according to the respondents/plaintiffs is Rs.18,37,400/-. The actual valuation of the suit, according to law, is Rs.3,37,400/- i.e. on the valuation of the sale-deed and the valuation of suit according to market value i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- is wrong and illegal. Even if the valuation of the suit is considered to be Rs.18,37,400/-, then the respondents/plaintiffs are liable to pay the court-fee on the aforesaid valuation of Rs.18,37,400/- but sufficient court-fee had not been paid by the respondents/plaintiffs and on these premises, the suit filed by the respondent is liable to be rejected. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of J. Vasabthi & Ors. v. N. Ramani & Ors., (AIR 2017 SC 3813), Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010 AIR SCW 3308) and Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad & Ors., (1973 AIR SC 2384) and the judgments passed by Division Benches as well as Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Sudhirdas v. United Church of D Canada India & Ors., [2020 (3) MPLC 119 (M.P.)], Israt Jahan v. Rajja Begum & Ors., [2010 (I) MPWN 32], Rajkumar Jain v. Savitri Devi & Ors., [2010 (I) MPWN 63] and Hazi Suba