NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 1 of 2024 • Bharatlal Soni, S/o Fulchand Soni, aged about 79 years, R/o Village PO- Bapali, Jila- Korba (C.G.)

---- Applicant Versus

1. Srimati Shakuntala Soni, D/o Fulchand Soni, aged about 60 years R/o And PO Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents CAUSE TITLE DOWNLOADED FROM CIS PERIPHERY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant : Mr. Chitranjay Singh Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

24.04.2024

1. This Civil Revision has been iled against the order dated

26.04.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 04/A/2018 by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Kartala (wrongly mentioned in the cause title as ‘Civil Appeal’), whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintif has iled a Civil Suit for partition, possession and mesne proit, in which, the applicant has iled an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and raised an objection. In the application, it has been averred that on the suit property, a house has been constructed and at the time of iling of the Civil Suit, the valuation of the said house amounted to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. It has been further averred that the suit has not been properly valued and accordingly, Court Fees has also not been aixed properly and the suit has not been iled before a Court having proper pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned trial Court observed that at the time of consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, only the averments made in the plaint and the accompanying documents relied upon in the plaint ought to be seen and the Court cannot look into the defence set up by the defendants in their written statements or while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned trial Court further observed that the plaintif has estimated the value of the suit property on his own will to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, on which, he has paid the Court Fees and the defendant has raised the objection on this issue and further, on the suit property, only a hut has been constructed, which is too old and lastly, by observing that the said issues can be decided only after evidence of both the parties, dismissed the application. Hence, this Revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record carefully.

4. In the matter of Sujir Keshav Nayak Vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 731, by referring to the judgment rendered in the matter of Tara Devi Vs. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987) 4 SCC 69, the following was materially observed in para

3:-

3. ……..In Tara Devi Vs. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, this Court observed :(SCC p.71 para 4)

“It is now well settled by the decisions in this Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245 and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar [(1980) 1 SCC 616] that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintif is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same.

But the defendant has no right to raise such objection nor the court should delve int