Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 396 (MP)

Umashankar Pateriya v. Kanhaiya Lal

2023-03-20

ANJULI PALO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following: 1. This civil revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicants against order dtd. 14/12/2017 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No.A/3900105/2016 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondents No.1 to 5, as plaintiffs before the trial Court, filed a Civil Suit No.A/3900105/2016 against the defendants (applicants No.1 & 2 and respondents No.6 to 13) seeking relief of declaration of title and declaring the sale-deeds executed by the applicant No.1 in favour of applicant No.2 and respondents No.6 to 11 as null and void as also for grant of permanent injunction. 3. During pendency of aforesaid civil suit the applicants (defendants No.1 & 2) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that respondents/plaintiffs have paid fixed court fee and not paid ad valorem court fee and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-specific of cause of action as also misjoinder of party and barred by law as also limitation as the respondents/plaintiffs have erroneously stated that cause of action arose on 18/2/2016 and that the temple in question is not registered Public Trust under the provision of Sec. 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed their reply to aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC stating that on the basis of order of Revenue Court dtd. 18/2/2016 the applicant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 9 on 5/3/2016 and suit has been filed as a representative of public at large and accordingly, claimed dismissal of the suit. The trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 14/12/2017 dismissed the application filed by applicants/defendants No.1 & 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the applicants have filed instant revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants challenged the impugned order on the ground that the trial Court overlooked well settled legal proposition with regard to valuation of the suit, in case where the plaintiff has demanded the relief of declaration with consequential relief of claiming possession of suit land. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants challenged the impugned order on the ground that the trial Court overlooked well settled legal proposition with regard to valuation of the suit, in case where the plaintiff has demanded the relief of declaration with consequential relief of claiming possession of suit land. The plaintiffs were required to pay ad valurem court fees on valuation of suit i.e. Rs.1, 60, 51, 204.00 as per Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act as also taking into account Clause(iii) of Schedule-II to Article 17. The court below ought to have appreciated the plaintiffs admission made in paragraph 01 of the plaint wherein they themselves stated that they are Chairman of the unregistered Management Committee of Dev Thakur Baba Temple. 5. In this case, three (03) sale deeds have been challenged by the respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court. All the sale deeds were executed by the applicant/defendant No.1 in favour of Defendants No.2 to 8. Hence, court fees according to the value of the property is not required. Further, misjoinder & non-joinder of parties due to cause of action are not concerned under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Other objections raised by the applicants are mixed questions of facts and law. Hence, without recording of evidence these questions cannot be adjudicated. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. In the result, the civil revision stands dismissed.