Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 421 (RAJ)

Kasturaram v. Gomati

2025-02-18

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 20.05.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.10/2017, whereby the prayer of the petitioners to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was refused. 3. The petitioners prayed before the trial Court that the suit has been under-valued and proper valuation should be of Rs.20,54,715/-. The plaintiff was not a coparcener, therefore, he had no right to bring the suit for partition. 4. Both the aforesaid grounds are not grounds for rejection of plaint as mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., which is being reproduced below : “ 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” 5. Evidently, the occasion under Clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII would arise when the relief claimed is under-valued and the Court asked the plaintiff to correct the valuation within time fixed and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation. In the case on hand, the Court has not passed any such direction against the plaintiff. Evidently, the occasion under Clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII would arise when the relief claimed is under-valued and the Court asked the plaintiff to correct the valuation within time fixed and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation. In the case on hand, the Court has not passed any such direction against the plaintiff. Likewise, Clause (c) would apply only when insufficient stamp duty has been paid and the Court required the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp paper within time fixed by the Court and the plaintiff failed to do so. It is also not a case on hand, hence, the plaint could not have been rejected with the assistance of Clause (b) and (c) above. 6. If the defendants raised any grievance for under valuation of the suit, the trial Court is required to decide the aforesaid issue first as required by the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1961. 7. Likewise, the claim that the plaintiff is not a coparcener is a disputed question of fact which would be decided during the suit and would not be a ground for rejection of the plaint. 8. The law is well settled that rejection of plaint is to be considered on meaningful perusal of the plaint only and the defence version cannot be considered at this stage. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the instant civil revision stands dismissed.