[2026:RJ-JP:5919]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 64/2026 Ashok Kumar Son of Ramswaroop, Resident of Shekhpura, Behrawanda, District Dausa Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. Seduram Son of Sriya Alias Srinarayan, Resident of Shekhpura, Behrawanda, District Dausa Rajasthan

2. Mukesh Kumar Saini Son of Heeralal Saini, Resident of Garh, Tehsil Behrawanda, District Dausa Rajasthan

3. Government Secondary School Shekhpura, Through Principal Gram Shekhpura Tehsil Behrawanda District Dausa

4. State of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Through Tehsildar Behrawanda District Dausa

5. Sub-Registrar, Behrawanda Tehsil Behrawanda District Dausa ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma with Mr. Ramavtar Gupta For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

09/02/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai, District Dausa in Suit No.91/2025 titled as 'Seduram Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.', whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.10.2025, while stating that the suit land was a joint Khatedari and an undivided land, wherein the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was residing after an oral partition of the suit property. He further submits that the entire suit property was illegally alienated by the respondents by executing the sale deed dated 29.10.2025, whereas the plaintiff-respondent was only having a share in the suit property, and accordingly prayed for a declaration of the sale deed dated

20.10.2025 as void and cancellation of the same.

3. In the said suit, after service upon the present petitioner, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, stating therein that the suit has been filed with deficient court fees, as the DLC value of the suit property is on a higher side, whereas the suit has been valued at a meagre Rs.1,000/-.

4. The said application dated 28.11.2025 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was contested by the respondent by filing a written reply dated 01.12.2025, stating therein that the court fees paid was in terms of Section 7(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961'), and thus, prayed for rejection of the application.

5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for both parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The learned Trial Court, while examining the scope of Section 7(2) of the Act of 1961, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors.¹ and held that the court fees so deposited by the plaintiff/respondent cannot be said to be deficient.

1 AIR 2010 SC 2807

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has seriously erred in rejecting the application without appreciating the fact that the suit was filed on deficient court fees and prayed for rejection of the same.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

8. From the record of the case, it is evident that the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit No.91/2025 for declaration of the sale deed dated 20.10.2025 as void and cancellation of the same, executed by the defendant No.1/petitioner and defendant No.2/respondent. It is also revealed that the present plaintiff- respondent is not an executant of the sale deed; therefore, it would be apt to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh (supra), which has been reproduced as under:

"6. Where the executant of a deed wants