JUDGMENT

1. By way of this revision petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an Order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts in CS DJ No.638/2021 dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner for rejection of the plaint of Respondent No.1 herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The Respondent No.1 herein is the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration, partition possession, rendition of accounts, recovery of rent and permanent injunction.

3. The impugned order reveals that the Plaintiff had valued the suit property at Rs.85,00,000/-. The Petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint stating that the suit has not been valued properly and appropriate court fee has not been affixed.

4. It is stated in the application that the father of the Petitioner had executed a Will dated 07.08.2009 in favour of the Petitioner and the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that no cause of action as alleged arise in Delhi and, therefore, suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable. The application further states that the value of the property is more than Rs.5,00,00,000/- and the Court where the suit had been filed did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. It is further stated that the Plaintiff has not been in possession of the suit property and they have also not affixed proper court fee to claim partition and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The said application came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge on 14.03.2023.

6. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order rejected the application stating that the Delhi circle rates are not relevant for the purpose of valuation of the suit property and for the suits which are filed before the Civil Courts when an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is considered, the Court is bound by the valuation which is done by the Plaintiff and whether the suit is under-valued or not is a matter of trial and the defendants shall be at liberty to lead evidence in this regard at that stage. 7. The learned Additional District Judge held that question of court fee to be paid on the basis of the relief that has been claimed also cannot be gone into the stage of passing an order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC since the Plaintiff has claimed joint possession and there is no averment in the plaint regarding exclusion of the Plaintiff from the suit property and, therefore, the Plaintiff was not liable to pay the court fee.

8. The learned Additional District Judge further held that the Will that has been relied upon by the Petitioner cannot be taken into consideration at the time of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC since the court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 is bound to only consider the plaint and documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff and the defence set up by the Defendants cannot be considered at that stage.

9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. It is well settled that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 stipulates that the Plaintiff is free to make his own estimate under the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted by the courts. The Apex Court in Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, trhough Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad & Anr., 1987 (4) SCC 69, has observed as under:-

“4... It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [AIR 1958 SC 245 : 1958 Mad LJ (Cri) 148 : 1958 SCR 1024] and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar [(1980) 1 SCC 616 : AIR 1979 SC 989 : (1979) 3 SCR 385] that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the pl