IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 7019 of 2025 RAJKUMAR BADONIYA Versus GAYATRI BADONIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shanker Pd Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Shri K.K.Guatam -PL for respondent No.5/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

07.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Court whereby the Appellate Court had rejected application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the appeal memo on the ground that memorandum of appeal is under-valued.

2. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a suit before the Trial Court, which has been dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 15.05.2015 and one of the issues framed in the said suit was that whether the plaint has been properly valued and proper court fees has been paid, which was issue No.3 and the said issue has been decided against the present plaintiff as per detailed reasoning mentioned in para-22 of the judgment of the trial Court and the Trial Court held that the suit is not properly valued and proper court fees has not been paid.

3. The plaintiffs have filed statutory appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the appellate Court against the said judgment and decree and the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court is also under challenge in appeal. The petitioner/defendant filed an application for rejection of appeal on the ground that looking to the findings of the trial Court, the memorandum of appeal is under-valued and proper court fees has not been paid. The said objection/application was rejected by the appellate Court on the ground that there is judgment against the plaintiff/appellant before the appellate Court, in which one of the issue was that whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court fees has been paid and in the appeal, the decision on the issue decided against the plaintiffs have been challenged which includes challenge to the issue as regards suit valuation and court fees. 4. The Appellate Court has rightly held that the question regarding suit valuation and court fees was decided by the trial Court, which is under challenge before the appellate Court and therefore, the appellate Court at preliminary stage cannot force the plaintiff/appellant before it to value the memorandum of appeal and pay the court fees as per the findings of the trial Court because the findings of the trial Court are under challenge before the appellate Court.

5. Reasultantly, finding no ground to interfere in the present petition but reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise this ground in the pending appeal at the time of arguments, the petition is dismissed.

6. It seems that the appeal is pending in the Appellate Court since the year 2015, hence, the Appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and if possible, within three months from the date of production of copy of this order.

7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE sm