PARMANAND vs NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3002

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint for undervaluation - The court is required to afford an opportunity to the party to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the court before rejecting the plaint; rejection is not an instant consequence of an objection as to valuation. (Paras 25, 26)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 14 Rule 2 - Preliminary issues - Obligation cast upon the Court that it must proceed to hear all the issues and pronounce judgment on the same, rather than treating a question of law as a preliminary issue if that decision does not dispose of the whole or part of the case. (Para 29)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - Power to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for keeping subordinate courts within bounds of authority; not for correcting mere errors of fact or legal flaws when the final finding is justified. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for declaration that a Will was null and void, for redemption of mortgage, and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendant challenged the valuation of the suit, contending it was undervalued based on land revenue and should instead be valued at market rate, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC or the framing of a preliminary issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application was upheld. It was found that the statutory process for undervaluation was not followed as no opportunity for correction was first given to the plaintiff. Additionally, since the suit land was assessed to land revenue, the valuation based on such assessment was permissible under the applicable Court Fees Act.

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for undervaluation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and whether the issue of valuation and jurisdiction should be treated as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that rejection of a plaint for undervaluation is a drastic power to be exercised only after the party fails to correct the valuation upon court direction. Furthermore, the court emphasized the duty of the trial court to hear all issues and pronounce judgment on them collectively rather than treating specific jurisdictional issues as preliminary unless they dispose of the case.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for declaration challenging Will and seeking redemption of mortgage — Defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging undervaluation was rejected — High Court upheld rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 10 )

2. Defendant argued that suit was undervalued and court lacked jurisdiction; plaintiffs argued valuation based on land revenue was correct and plaint cannot be rejected at threshold. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 )

3. High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227, upholding trial court's order rejecting defendant's application. (Para 31 , 32 )

4. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

It is limited to cases of serious dereliction of duty, flagrant violation of law, or perverse findings; not for correcting mere errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )

5. Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, can a plaint be rejected at the threshold merely on the ground of undervaluation?

No. The court must first require the plaintiff to correct the valuation within a fixed time; rejection is only upon failure to comply. (Para 25 , 26 )

6. In a suit for declaration and possession, how is the valuation for court fee determined when the land is assessed to land revenue?

The valuation is based on the revenue assessed, not the market value, as per the H.P. Court Fees Act. (Para 28 )

7. Can an issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court be tried as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC?

No, unless the decision disposes of the case; courts must normally decide all issues together after trial. (Para 29 , 30 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

( 2026:HHC:18845 )

CMPMO No. 98 of 2023.

Reserved on: 06.05.2026.

Decided on : 21^st May, 2026.

Parmanand

.....Petitioner.

Versus

Narender Kumar & Ors.

...Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondents:

Mr. Mohinder Singh Thakur, Advocate.

ORDER

Romesh Verma, Judge.

1. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.II, Shimla, H.P. dated 05.01.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Order 7 Rules 10 and 11(b) & (c) of the CPC was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Will No.38, dated 30.06.1989, of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 2/4, Khasra No. 505, measuring 10-6 bigha and Khasra No.576, measuring 1-19 bigha, total 12-5 bigha situated at Mohal Mohari, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. in favour of the defendant is illegal, null and void and further the declaration was sought that the mutation No.467, dated 18.03.2010 attested in favour of the defendant on the basis of Will No.38, dated 30.06.1989 is also illegal and wrong. Further redemption of mortgage created vide mutation No.200, dated 24.09.1989 and possession of the suit land along with permanent prohibitory injunction was sought by the plaintiffs against the defendant.

3. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiffs are sons and daughters of late Smt. Leela Devi wife of late Shri Shalig Ram. Smt. Devki was the wife of late Shri Jeet Ram, who had expired prior to her husband on 20.07.2009. Smt. Leela Devi had expired on 23.08.2010. Smt. Leela Devi had every right to inherit the property of her father late Sh. Jeet Ram being his sole natural legal heir. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Smt. Leela Devi. After the death of Smt. Leela Devi, her estate devolved upon the plaintiffs being her natural legal heirs. It is averred that after the death of late Shri Jeet Ram, mutation No. 467, dated 18.03.2010 was attested in favour of Smt. Leela Devi. She was under a bonafide belief that the mutation of whole of the property of her father had been attested in her favour and she was made confident by the concerned revenue officer that the whole of the property will go to Leela Devi through mutation No. 467.

4. As per the plaintiffs, the deceased Jeet Ram never executed Will No.38, dated 30.06.1989 in favour of the defendant. The said document is a forged document and is result of manipulation and fraud. Defendant was in possession of the suit land on the basis of mortgage. Late Sh. Jeet Ram had mortgaged the suit land in favour of the defendant vide mutation No.200, dated 24.09.1989 for a sum of Rs.13,000/-. Smt. Leela Devi and thereafter the plaintiff remain under a bonafide belief that the defendant is in possession of the suit land on the basis of mortgage and they had no knowledge regarding the Will. It is further averred that the suit land was mortgaged with possession for a sum of Rs.13,000/- in favour of the defendant as such the possession of the suit land is lying with the defendant, who had driven the profit out of the suit land. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the mortgage amount to the defendant so that possession of the suit land be reverted back to plaintiffs by way of redemption.

5. As per the plaintiffs, the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The suit is valued at Rs.300/- for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per the revenue assessed on the suit land. Therefore, the suit was filed claiming the reliefs for declaration, redemption of the mortgaged land and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant before the learned trial Court.

6. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement raising various

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
PARMANAND – Appellant
Versus
NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS – Respondent
CMPMO/98/2023

Rejection of a plaint for undervaluation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires the court to first grant the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the valuation. Similarly, courts should generally hear all issues together rather than treating valuation or jurisdiction as preliminary issues.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

5. Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, can a plaint be rejected at the threshold merely on the ground of undervaluation?

6. In a suit for declaration and possession, how is the valuation for court fee determined when the land is assessed to land revenue?

7. Can an issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court be tried as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMAPARMANAND – AppellantVersusNARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS – RespondentCMPMO/98/2023

Rejection of a plaint for undervaluation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires the court to first grant the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the valuation. Similarly, courts should generally hear all issues together rather than treating valuation or jurisdiction as preliminary issues.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

5. Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, can a plaint be rejected at the threshold merely on the ground of undervaluation?

6. In a suit for declaration and possession, how is the valuation for court fee determined when the land is assessed to land revenue?

7. Can an issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court be tried as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC?

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
PARMANAND – Appellant
Versus
NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS – Respondent
CMPMO/98/2023