Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1251 (RAJ)

Mildred D'silva v. Noel D'silva

2019-04-26

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 15.11.2017, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the objection was with regard to the Court fees. The property was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 55,000/-, whereas the actual value of the property was 63,00,000/-. The Court below refused to deal with the issues as a preliminary issue and has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 3. It is contended that as per the Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, when defendant pleads that the suit is not properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit and if the Court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended and the deficit fees shall be paid. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act further provides that If the plaint be hot so amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected. 5. It is contended that trial Court should be directed to decide the question with regard to deficit court fees in accordance with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Mohkam Chand Dasot v. Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur” 2006 (2) WLC 431 . 7. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has opposed the Revision Petition. His contention is that proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of CPC bars the High Court from varying or reversing any order except the order made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act has been completely overlooked by the Court below. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act has been completely overlooked by the Court below. Since the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to the Court fees, it is the duty of the Court to act in accordance of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The contention of counsel for the respondent that High Court should not vary or reverse an order unless the order if made in favour of the party applying would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings. 10. It is clear from perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act that if the Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has paid deficit Court fees. It will direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint, furnish deficit court fees and in the event of non-payment of court fees, the plaint shall be rejected. The determination of proper court fees is thus material to the decision of the case and provides for rejection of the plaint if the deficit court fees is not paid. Since the petitioner has stated in his written statement that the value of the property is to the tune of Rs. 63,00,000/-, whereas, plaintiff had valued only Rs. 55,000/-, this Court deems it proper to allow the Revision Petition. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 12. Trial Court is directed to first determine the court fees in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act before proceeding further. 13. Stay application stands disposed.