Point of Law: Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.

ORDER :

Heard Md. Imran Khan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 4; and Mr. S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.565 of 2018 in O.S.No.221 of 2017.

3. By order dated 30.12.2021 this Court had summed up the controversy in the following manner:

Petitioner, as the plaintiff, has instituted the related suit O.S.No.221 of 2017 for partition of suit property. Defendants filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation. It is submitted that defendants also raised the contention that the suit was undervalued and, therefore, it should be rejected on that ground as well.

By the order dated 01.12.2021, learned court below rejected I.A.No.565 of 2018. However, plaintiff (petitioner herein) was directed to pay the deficit court fee within a period of one month i.e., on or before 30.12.2021.

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2021, the present civil revision has been filed.

Order VII Rule 11 deals with rejection of plaint. As per clause (b), a plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court fails, to do so. A reading of this provision would go to show that there must be a prior order or direction of the court to the plaintiff to correct the valuation within a stipulated period, failing which the plaint shall be rejected.

In the instant case, what has happened is that on a petition filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint, learned court below found the same to be merit less and accordingly rejected the same. However, while so rejecting the petition, plaintiff was directed to pay the defcit court fee on or before 30.12.2021. When petition under Order VII Rule 11 was dismissed, question of the court below directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on such petition does not arise. Learned court below could not have issued such direction on the rejected petition of the defendants.

Issue notice.

Since respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented, formal notice to the said respondents stands obviated. However, petitioner to take steps for service of notice on respondent Nos.1 and 4 through the court process.

In the meanwhile, the direction of the court below contained in paragraph 6 (j) of the order dated 01.12.2021 shall remain stayed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in joint possession of the suit schedule property and denied execution of the partition deed entered into by the defendants as per which she was allotted only one flat out of 67 flats. He therefore, submits that the plaint has been correctly valued under Section 34 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: NEELAVATHI Vs. M. NATARAJAN, AIR 1980 SC 69, N. SAVITHRI Vs. N. HANMAPPA, MANU/AP/0599/2016, A. DIVAKRUPAMANI Vs. A. SAKUNTALA DEVI, 3 2000 (2) ALD 754, CRP No.4562 of 2018 decided on 31.10.2018, MS. NEERI KOSARAJU RAO NEERAJA V. SMT. N. JYOTHSNA DEVI. He has also placed reliance on CRP No.446 of 1982 decided on 30.08.1989, SRI SATYANARAYANA V. SRI OM PRAKASH.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaint has been insufficiently stamped. Plaintiff having specifically pleaded to have been excluded from possession of the suit schedule property ought to have valued the plaint under Section 34 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. By not doing