1. The applicants - defendants No. 1, 3 (a), 3 (b), 5 (3) and 5 (b) have filed this revision under section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 11.1.2013, passed by the Xth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 122-A/2005, whereby their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, for dismissal of the suit for want of proper valuation and the court fee accordingly, has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent No. 1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit against the applicants as well as against remaining respondents as stated in the cause title of the plaint, (Ann. P-1) for partition and some other reliefs with respect of the land described in plaint. Besides the cause title on perusing the prayer clause of the plaint, it is apparent that the suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in such property along with the prayer for declaration to declare the family arrangements, letter dated 11.6.1984, alleged Will dated 26.6.1992 and 4.5.1994 to be ab initio void and the same are not binding against him. As per para 11 of the plaint, in view of the prayer of the respondent- plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the disputed land by assessing the twenty times of land revenue Rs. 1516/- of entire land, out of which accordingly to his 1/7th share in the property, the suit is valued in that ratio for the purpose of the Court fees Rs. 217/- and court fee was also paid accordingly in this regard. Besides this, for the purpose of the relief of above mentioned declaration the suit is separately valued on fixed valuation of Rs.1000/- and accordingly court fee of Rs.100/- is also affixed on the pliant.

3. In the written statement of the applicant, the defendants, the averments of the plaint regarding title and interest of the respondent No. 1 in the disputed property are denied. In further averments besides the other defence, the objection that suit has not been valued in accordance with law and the court fee has also not been paid accordingly, is also taken. In pendency of the suit on behalf of the applicants, the impugned application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC (Ann. P-3) to dismiss the suit for want of proper valuation and the court fee was filed. The averments of aforesaid IA were denied on behalf of respondent No. 1 by filing its reply, (Ann. P-4). In reply, it is stated that the suit has been filed on proper valuation and the court fee in accordance with provision of the Court Fees Act and prayer for dismissal of the application was made.

4. After extending the opportunity of hearing to the parties on consideration by holding that suit has been filed on proper valuation and the court fee, the application was dismissed by the trial Court. Being dissatisfied with such order, the applicants have come to this Court with this revision.

5. The applicants’ counsel after taking me through the averments of the revision as well as papers placed on record along with the impugned order by referring, the decision of this Court in the matter of Digambar Kumar Jain v. Smt. Maya Bai and others reported in 2007(1) MPWN 71 = 2007, (1), M.P.H.T. 69, argued that in the available factual matrix of the case when the respondent No. 1 herein has filed the impugned suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share of the disputed land of joint Hindu family, then in that circumstances, it could not be assumed that with respect of the share claimed by the respondent No. 1 in the suit the separate land revenue has been assessed by the revenue department in accordance with the procedure prescribed under M.P. Land Revenue Code, thus, in the lack of separate assessment of the land revenue on the claimed share of the land, in view of pleadings and the prayer of the plaint, the respondent No. 1 is bound to value the suit on the market price of the property, i.e. ad valorem valuation and also