##PAGE1##

1 MP-90-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 90 of 2026

SHYAMLAL

Versus

SMT. REKHA BAI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Surendra Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant being

aggrieved by the order of the trial court thereby rejecting his application

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which is placed on record as Annexure P/9 dated

14.08.2025 holding that how much land is vacant and how much construction

is there on the land in question, is a point to be determined after evidence

and at this stage it cannot be adjudged that the valuation made by the plaintiff

is at lower side.

2. The necessary facts leading to the present petition are that the

respondent herein had filed a civil suit in which initially the valuation made

by the plaintiff was challenged on the ground that valuation ought to be as

per market value and that objection was sustained by the trial court vide order

dated 27.09.2023 and plaintiff was directed to value the suit accordingly and

pay the court fees on advalorem basis. Thereafter the plaintiff valued the suit

at Rs.1,10,000/- and this led the petitioner to file an application under Order

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 07-02-2026

14:51:40

2 MP-90-2026

7 Rule 11 CPC by placing reliance on a report of civil engineer/valuer that

the actual value of property is Rs.7.64 lakhs and the valuation of the house at

Rs.1.10 lakhs made by the plaintiff is arbitrarily at a much lower side.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid valuation report, the case was

vehemently argued by the counsel of the petitioner that the plaintiff has

valued the suit arbitrarily at Rs.1,10,000/- without any justification for the

said valuation and as per the report of valuer, the land and the construction

thereupon has been valued at Rs.7.64 lakhs.

4. Upon hearing the assertions of learned counsel for the petitioner

and on going through the documents on record, it is seen that earlier the trial

court had only directed vide order dated 27.09.2023 to indicate the market

value of the house constructed on the land. However, now the petitioner

wants the market value of the entire land as well as the constructed house to

be assessed at the market rate and he wants the value of entire land to be

assessed as per guideline value and the construction to be valued as per the

report of the civil engineer/valuer. The trial court has rightly held that it is to

be established through evidence that how much land is vacant and on how

much land construction is there and what is the nature and area of

construction, and at this stage the court cannot deviate into an enquiry to

assess the value of the house.

5. This court does not find any error of jurisdiction or reasoning in

the aforesaid order of the trial court.

6. At this stage the trial court could not have ventured into a parallel

enquiry to assess the market value of the house because it would require

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 07-02-2026

14:51:40

3 MP-90-2026

recording of evidence as to the area of land, area of construction and the

nature of construction.

7. Therefore, interference in the impugned order is declined and the

petition is dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE

MISHRA

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 07-02-2026

14:51:40