##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8866

1 MP-2720-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 2720 of 2023

HIMMAT SINGH

Versus

LAKHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Rahul Deshmukh - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

challenging the order Annexure P/6 dated 10.03.2023 passed by the trial

Court, thereby directing the plaintiff to pay court fees as per the value

contained in the sale deed which is the subject matter of the suit. This

worder was passed by the trial Court while dealing with an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that

such a direction could not have been passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

by the trial Court and the Court could only have rejected the plaint but

could not have directed the petitioner to pay the court fees in a particular

manner.

3. So far as this assertion of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned,

the trial Court has only granted an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PREM SHANKAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 31-01-2026

15:06:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8866

2 MP-2720-2023

correct court fees and has ordered that in case the correct court fees is not

paid, then the plaint shall be rejected. The aforesaid order is only in terms

of Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC and is, therefore, not beyond the scope of the

jurisdiction of the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, this

assertion is discarded.

4. The petition is heard on other grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

filed a suit seeking declaration that the power of attorney executed by the

petitioner on 02.07.2018 is a void document and the sale deed executed

in favour of the defendants on the strength of such power of attorney is

also void as against the interests of the plaintiff and relief of permanent

exemption has been sought, restraining the defendants from interfering in

the possession or alienation of the suit property.

6. It is vehemently contented by the counsel for the petitioner that the

sale deed though has been executed by power of attorney holder of the

petitioner and he had executed power of attorney in favour of the

defendant No.1, but that power of attorney was defective and by

misusing the authority granted by the said power of attorney, the

defendant No.1 has sold the property to the defendant No.2, which is

misuse of authority and, therefore, the sale is void and the

petitioner/plaintiff has not received any consideration out of the said

sale.

7. It is argued that so far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PREM SHANKAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 31-01-2026

15:06:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8866

3 MP-2720-2023

Court in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh

and others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112 is concerned, the said

judgment would apply in view of the peculiar provisions of the Court

Fees Act as exist in the State of Punjab. However, in view of provisions

of Article 17 of Schedule-II to Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable in the

State of Madhya Pradesh, suit to obtain declaratory decree where no

consequential relief is prayed only attracts fixed court fees and as held by

a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sabina alias Farida vs.

Mohd. Abdul Wasit, reported in AIR 1997 MP 25, relief of permanent

injunction is not a consequential relief and, therefore, as per Article

17(iii) of Schedule-II to the Court-Fees Act as applicable in Madhya

Pradesh only fixed court fees was payable.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has

vehemently supported the impugned order to submit that the impugned

order is absolutely valid and in accordance with law.

9. Upon considering the rival assertions a