IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 18^thOF JULY, 2024 FIRST. APPEAL No. 730 of 2000 SURESH CHAND Versus SHIV VISHAL THORUGH LRS AND OTHERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCE:

(BYSHRI RAVISH AGRAWAL SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS.

SANJANA SAHNI– ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

(BYSHRI K.K GAUTAM – ADVOCATE FOR LRS OF RESPONDENT 1)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T This first appeal has been preferred by appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 12.07.2000 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Shahdol, in Civil Suit No.8-A/1989, whereby plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed for want of compliance of order dated 30.10.1999.

2. Short facts of the case are that the plaintiff Suresh Kumar instituted a suit for declaring the sale deed dated 24.07.1971 to be null and void and recovery of possession of the suit property as well as for declaring the subsequent sale deeds executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 12-18. On basis of consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.07.1971 and on basis of twenty times of land revenue,the plaintiff valued the suit for the relief(s) claimed in the plaint and paid requisite court fee as described in paragraph 35 of the plaint.

3. Upon filing written statement by defendant(s), trial Court framed issues and proceeded furtherto record evidence of the parties, but during pendency of suit and incompliance of order dated 24.03.1998 passed by this Court in C.R. No.669/1998, trial Court proceeded to decide issue no.11 as preliminary issue and after hearing arguments of the parties, decided the same against the plaintiff, vide order dated 30.10.1999 by holding that the plaintiff has not paid requisite court fee on the valuation of Rs.22,000/- and for other relief(s) and directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint putting valuation on the basis of market value and then to pay court fee thereon,however trial Court did not determine any valuationor court fee payable by the plaintiff.

4. In pursuance of direction contained in paragraph 17 of the order dated 30.10.1999, the plaintiff filed an application proposing amendment in plaint regarding valuation and payment of court fee and on valuation of Rs.22,000/- paid court fee of Rs.2330/- on 03.12.1999 and also shown willingness to pay court fee according to the valuation made in the plaint, but the application for amendment was rejected by trial Court vide order dated 04.01.2000, which was challenged before the High Court by filing C.R. No.182/2000, however by the time civil revision rendered infructuousbecause of passing of final order dt. 12.07.2000by trial Court dismissing the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that according to plaint averments and the relief claimed therein, the plaintiff rightly and properly valued the suit and paid requisite court fee and upon passing the order dtd. 30.10.1999 on preliminary issue no.11, the plaintiff proposed amendment in the plaint regarding valuation and payment of court fee and also paid court fee amount of Rs.2,330/-, but trial Court committed illegality in dismissing the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and even at the time of rejection of application, trial Court did notdetermine/specify the valuation and payment of court fee.

6. In support of her submissions learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others vs. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal AIR 1988 SC 1636and submits that trial Court was not correct in dismissing the suit, that toowithout final determination of valuation and court fee. With these submissions learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel appearing for LRs of respondent 1 supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal, with