Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 579 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra v. Municipal Board, Bikaner

2016-04-26

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 22.7.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby on an application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the petitioners-plaintiffs have been directed to value the suit based on the DLC rates of the State Government and pay the court-fees accordingly. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent-Municipal Corporation and in the suit claimed the valuation of the property at Rs. 70,000/- and after valuing the suit as Rs. 1,000/- for permanent injunction and Rs. 1,000/- for mandatory injunction, paid court-fees on a valuation of Rs. 72,000/-. 3. The suit remained pending before the trial court, wherein no written statement was filed by the Municipal Corporation and ultimately, the opportunity to file the written statement as closed on 1.5.2012; where after, the statement of petitioners' witnesses were completed, wherein counsel for the defendant cross-examined the witnesses on their affidavits. 4. Where after, the present application was filed on 5.5.2014 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC inter-alia indicating that the property has been valued at Rs. 70,000/- whereas the market value of the disputed property was more than Rs. 5 lacs and therefore, for non-payment of requisite court-fees, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial court on the said application, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that though for an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint which has to be looked into, as the plaintiffs have not indicated the basis for valuing the suit property at Rs. 70,000/-, it would be proper if the plaintiffs are directed to pay the court-fees based on the DLC rates as determined by the Sub-Registrar Office, Bikaner and consequently passed the impugned order. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in passing the order impugned on an application under Order 7, Rule 11CPC at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiffs was already over and matter was fixed for final arguments; the written statement had not been filed and on a cursory application filed by the defendant, the order has been passed and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the application was rightly accepted by the trial court as the petitioner did not indicate the basis for valuing the suit property at Rs. 70,000/- and therefore, no interference is called for in the order impugned. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. From the sequence of events, as noticed herein-before, the defendant did not file the written statement and the written statement was closed on 1.5.2012. Thereafter, they participated in the proceedings of the suit by cross-examining the plaintiffs' witness over a period of one year and after the matter was fixed for final arguments, the present application was filed. 10. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant part of the application, which reads as under :- ^^mijksDr vuoku izdj.k esa vkt dh rkjh[k is'kh fu;r gSA oknhx.k }kjk mDr okn ?kks"k.kkRed ¼fMxzh½ vuqrks"k izkIr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k ,oa fookfnr tk;nkn dh ekfy;r :0 70 gtkj vkadh xbZ gSA tcfd fookfnr tk;nkn dh cktk: dher 5]00]000@& ikWap yk[k ls vf/kd gSA bl izdkj oknhx.k }kjk fodlhr tk;nkn dh cktk: dher ij U;k; 'kqYd vnk ugha dh xbZ gSA blfy, nkok oknhx.k deh dksVZ Qhl ij U;k; 'kqYd vnk ugha dh xbZ gSA blfy, nkok oknhx.k deh dksVZ Qhl ij gksus ds dkj.k blh LVst ij [kkfjt Qjek;k tkosA vr% izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu gS fd nkok oknh deh dksVZ Qhl gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt Qjek;sA ,lMh@& uxj fuxe chdkusj tfj;s odhy** 11. A perusal of the application reveals that the same was filed without any supporting material and had only been signed by the counsel. Even the respondent-Municipal Corporation did not care to disclose the basis for making the allegation that the property was worth more than Rs. 5,00,000/- and in fact, from the tenor of the application it appears that the same was filed by the counsel on his own apparently with a view to seek postponement in the matter. 12. The trial court though observed that for the purpose of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint which is to be looked into, passed the order impugned by observing that the basis for valuation is not disclosed. 13. 12. The trial court though observed that for the purpose of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint which is to be looked into, passed the order impugned by observing that the basis for valuation is not disclosed. 13. Once the valuation as disclosed in the plaint has not been questioned by the defendants by way of filing written statement and thereafter, filed application in most cursory manner, there was no reason for the trial court to get the property in question valued based on the DLC rates and thereafter, seek payment of court-fees on the same. The entire procedure sought to be adopted by the trial court is wholly beyond jurisdiction and it could not have passed the order. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.7.2014 is quashed and set-aside.