This much is reflected from the record that the plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner in the court of Civil Judge (SD), on 3.3.2016. As there was deficiency in the court fees, the suit was registered as Defective Original Suit No.35 of 2016 (Raju Prasad v. Hari Mohan Agarwal). An objection/ application was filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) qua the court fees. Finally the Civil Judge has rejected the plaint vide order dated 1.11.2017. The said order was assailed by the plaintiff-respondent by preferring an application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC but the same was also dismissed in default vide order dated 16.11.2018. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-respondent filed Misc. Appeal assailing the validity of the order dated 1.11.2017, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.87 of 2019 under Section 96 CPC. The said appeal was entertained vide order dated 7.5.2019 under Section 6 A of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The defendant-petitioner has preferred application being 39C dated 4.11.2020 objecting that the plaintiff-appellant has to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit property as the appeal has been filed against the order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which is decree under Section 2 (2) CPC. The said application was rejected by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Agra (appellate court) vide order impugned dated 19.11.2020 on the pretext that earlier similar objection has been entertained and his predecessor has already entertained the appeal, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.
