By this revision preferred under Section 115 of the CPC, the

applicants/defendants have challenged the orders dated 15.09.2022 and

06.05.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby their application under Order 7

Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the valuation

put by plaintiff/non-applicant on the same and the Court fee payable thereupon

is inadequate has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff initially instituted an action against defendants for

possession of the suit house and mesne profits by contending them to be his

licensees and submitting that their license has been terminated by notice dated

23.09.2019 yet they have not delivered possession of the suit house. Relief of

mesne profits at Rs.10,000/- per month was also claimed. Defendants raised an

objection as regards valuation of the suit on which by order dated 09.03.2021,

the trial Court observed that since plaintiff's claim is for possession, he is liable

to pay ad valorem Court fee on such relief whereas he has valued the claim at

Rs.200/- and has paid Court fee of Rs.100/- only thereupon.

3. The said order was not challenged by plaintiff nor did he comply with

the same and instead filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for

amendment of the plaint to delete the relief as regards mesne profits which has

been allowed by the trial Court by impugned order dated 15.09.2022.

2

Thereafter, the Trial Court held that the valuation as put by plaintiff on the plaint

is correct and rejected an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC which

had been filed by defendants for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-

compliance of order dated 09.03.2021.

4. Thereafter, defendants filed another application under Order 7 Rule 11

of the CPC submitting that plaintiff has not complied with the order dated

09.03.2021 and has not valued his claim and paid Court fee as directed therein

hence the plaint deserves to be rejected. The said application has been rejected

by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 holding that

plaintiff's claim is for mandatory injunction and he has paid adequate Court fee

thereupon and that the issue as regards adequacy of Court fee can be framed

and decided at an appropriate stage.

5. Learned counsel for defendants has submitted that plaintiff did not

comply with the order dated 09.03.2021 nor challenged the same before any

higher forum hence the same has attained finality and is binding upon him. For

non-compliance of the same, the plaint has to be necessarily rejected whereas

the trial Court has illegally passed the order dated 15.09.2022 holding that

subsequent to order dated 09.03.2021, plaintiff has deleted the relief of mesne

profits and now the claim is only for mandatory injunction hence is properly

valued and adequate Court fee has been paid thereupon. In doing so, it has

grossly misread its own earlier order whereby it had directed plaintiff to value

the claim and pay Court fee on the market value of the suit property.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants/defendants at

length.

7. Though, the claim was initially instituted by plaintiff for mandatory

injunction directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property

3

and for mesne profits but thereafter the relief of mesne profits has been deleted

and now the claim remains to be only for mandatory injunction. As per plaintiff,

the defendants were his licensees in the suit property and upon termination of

their license by notice dated 03.09.2019, the suit has been instituted. It has been

categorically held by this Court in Abdul Hussain and Others Vs. Mansoor

Ali and Others, 2009 (4) MPLJ 672 and Smt. Saraswati @ Jaya

Bichpuria Vs. Smt. Archana Bichpuria, 2007 (4) MPHT 131 that in a suit

for mandatory injunction directing delivery of possession of the disputed

property, ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the property is not liable

to be paid, if the claim is instituted promptly after termination of license of the

licensee. In the present case, license of defendan