The rejection of a plaint for insufficient court fee under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not automatic; the court must first grant the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficit valuation before exercising the power to reject the plaint.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Fair and decree dated 20.11.2025 made in IA NO. 3 of 2021 in OS No. 2798 of 2019 on the file of XVII Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.

2. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 3 of 2021 in O.S. No. 2798 of 2019 on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff challenged the sale deed as null and void, and to declare the title deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void as proper Court fee not paid. As the plaintiff executed the impugned sale deed and is a party to the document, he is not liable to pay Court fee under Section 25 of the TNCF&SV Act; he has to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the TNCF&SV Act. Hence, as the plaintiff has not paid the correct Court fee under Section 40 of the TNCF&SV Act, thus the plaint is liable to be rejected. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court held that when the plea of fraud is raised, the plaintiff cannot be asked to pay the Court fee under Section 40, and accordingly dismissed the application.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent on the record that the plaintiff has not paid the sufficient Court fee. If he is not inclined to pay the Court fee, the plaint ought to have been rejected. The suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration to declare the sale deed executed by him as null and void, by valuing the relief under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court- fees and Suits Valuation Act, is per se not maintainable. The plaintiff, being a party to the sale, should have sought the relief of cancellation of the sale deed under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. Further, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Chellakannu Vs. Kollanji, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 190, on the Court fees and suit valuation, contending that the plaintiff is duty-bound to value the suit on the market value set forth in the document. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

5. On perusal of the records, the facts revealed that the plaintiff has disputed the sale agreement in respect of the suit property, which was said to have been obtained fraudulently by the 1st defendant by way of fraud as if it were a mortgage deed, and also narrated the conduct of the petitioner. Further, in respect of the fraudulent transfer, the plaintiff has also lodged an FIR against the 1st defendant, wherein the trial is pending. In respect of the deficit Court fee, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Marg Limited Vs. Sushil Lalwani & others, reported in 2026 INSC 402, held as follows:

33. A plain and conjoint reading of clauses (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the power to reject a plaint on the grounds enumerated therein, is not to be exercised in the first instance, without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff. The statutory scheme contemplates a two-step process. Firstly, the Court must form an opinion that the relief claimed is undervalued or that the court fee paid is insufficient. Secondly, upon such determination, the Court is obligated to require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and/or supply the requisite court fee within a time to be fixed by it. It is only upon failure of the plaintiff to comply with such direction within the stipulated time, that the consequences of rejection of the plaint can ensue. Thus, the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) or (c) is not automatic upon a finding of un