Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2061 (RAJ)

Kishori Lal Sharma v. Shyam Sunder

2012-10-03

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Both the appeals arise out of the common order dated 19.6.12 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal Nos. 12/12 and 11/12, arising out of the order dated 10.5.12 passed by the Civil Judge & Judl. Magistrate (JD), Kotputli.(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit NO. 88/10. 2. The petitioners of both the petitions were the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit being No. 88/10, who had sought declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land belonging to the respondent No. 1 and 2, which has been sold out in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7. The rest of the respondents are the tenants of shops, which are part of the suit premises. The respondent No.1 submitted an application before the trial court under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the court did not have the jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had not paid up the requisite court fees as per the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. The trial court vide the order dated 10.5.12 returned the plaint of the plaintiffs under Order 7, Rule 10 of CPC by holding that the court did not have the jurisdiction considering the market value of the suit premises. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial court, the petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the appellate court, which have been dismissed by the appellate court vide the common impugned order dated 10.6.12. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Hemant Gajraj and Ms. Alankrita Sharma appearing for the petitioners-petitioners that the petitioners have sought the prayer for declaring the sale-deed executed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as null and void and for consequential injunction, for which the trial court had the jurisdiction. They also pressed into service the provisions contained in Section 24(e) to submit that the plaintiffs will be required to pay only the minimum court fees of Rs. 25/- and not on the basis of the market value of the suit premises. They also pressed into service the provisions contained in Section 24(e) to submit that the plaintiffs will be required to pay only the minimum court fees of Rs. 25/- and not on the basis of the market value of the suit premises. The learned counsels have also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., 2010 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 619 in support of their submissions. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 has submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs has been returned by the trial court for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction and the trial court had not decided the issue of court fees. According to him, the suit being in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioners-plaintiffs were also required to seek leave of the court under Section 91 and 92 of the CPC, apart from the fact that the court did not have the jurisdiction. 5. In the instant case it appears that the trial court on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 7, Rule 11 , instead of rejecting the plaint has returned the same for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction, under Order 7, Rule 10 of CPC, on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was about Rupees 50 lacs, and hence the court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. It also appears that the trial court while returning the plaint had dealt with the issue of court fees but had not decided the same, and has kept the said issue open as the court was returning the plaint on the ground of it not having the jurisdiction. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate court in the impugned order. The learned counsels for the petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court. They have also not been able to satisfy as to how the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in the present petitions. Both the petitions being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 7. They have also not been able to satisfy as to how the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in the present petitions. Both the petitions being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 7. The copy of the order be placed in the other petition being No. 12553/12.Petition dismissed. *******