The determination of the correct court fee based on the valuation of a sale deed is a crucial issue that may require the trial court to frame a specific issue for determination during the evidence stage to ensure maintainability and jurisdiction.

Order on Board

1. The instant revision has been filed by the applicants, aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2025, passed by the Learned Second District Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Civil Case No. 48-A/2024, titled "Anand Singh Chauhan v. Smt. Bhumika Chandrakar and Others." The certified copy of the impugned order, dated 10.02.2025, is annexed as ANNEXURE A/01. By this order, the learned Court below has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the CPC.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit on 04.09.2024, seeking a declaration for the nullification of the sale deed dated 03.08.2023, registered on 04.08.2023, and a permanent injunction concerning the property located in Village Charouda, Ward No. 28, Railway Colony, P.H. No. 9, Charouda, Tehsil Bhilai-3, District Durg, (C.G.) with Kh. No. 291/23, measuring 0.200 hectares. The plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 6 had executed a power of attorney on 05.06.2023 in favor of defendant No. 2, empowering them to sell or transfer the property. This general power of attorney was duly registered on 21.07.2023 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Patan. On 03.08.2023, defendant No. 2, acting under the power of attorney, executed a sale deed in favor of defendant No. 1, Smt. Bhumika Chandrakar. The plaintiff claims that the sale deed was executed fraudulently as the consideration amount of Rs. 64,04,000/- was never received by them, which was a necessary condition under the power of attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the sale deed, declaring it illegal and void. The plaintiff paid a court fee of Rs. 500 for the declaration and Rs. 500 for the permanent injunction. In response, the applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the plaintiff failed to pay the correct court fee based on the sale deed's value of Rs. 64,04,000/-, paying only Rs. 2500 instead. They argued that the plaintiff, being the seller in the sale deed, should pay the court fee according to the sale deed value, and the case is not maintainable due to insufficient court fees. The applicants also claimed that the sale deed, executed under the valid power of attorney, raised questions about the cause of action for the suit, which was not addressed in the plaint. Additionally, they contended that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant No. 1, in reply, denied the applicants' claims, and the learned trial court, in its order dated 10.02.2025, rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11. The trial court held that the failure of the consideration amount’s payment violated the terms of the power of attorney, making the plaintiff's involvement in the sale deed irrelevant for court fee purposes. The Court also found that the cause of action arose when the consideration amount was not paid, and thus the plaintiff’s suit was not barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The applicants argue that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and therefore, have filed this revision before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiff’s failure to pay the correct court fee in accordance with the sale deed is a material defect that directly impacts the maintainability of the suit. As the value of the sale deed