Dismissed¶40

Siddharth Shukla v. Tarkeshwari Shukla

Chhattisgarh HC11 Feb 2025WP227/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition maintainability; rejection of plaint; Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; Section 2(2) CPC deemed decree; suit to declare gift deed null and void; ad valorem court fee; Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112; office objection sustained; petition dismissed with liberty to seek statutory remedy; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the law. ¶40

Siddharth Shukla Vs Tarkeshwari Shukla — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2025:CGHC:7421

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 141 of 2025

¶7

1 - Siddharth Shukla S/o Ashish Kumar Shukla Aged About 10 Years Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Komal Shukla Wife Of Ashish Kumar Shukla, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Sadak No. 16, 8/a, Nandani Nagar, Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Tarkeshwari Shukla D/o Bhagwat Shukla Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Data Entry Operator, Nagrik Kalyan Mahavidyalaya, Nandani Nagar, Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Alka Shukla D/o Bhagwat Shukla Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Teacher, Kailashpati Singhaniya School, Nuvoco Cement Plant, Arasmeta, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

12.02.2025

¶17

According to the office objection, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶18

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated

¶19

4.11.2024 and 7.10.2024, whereby an application moved by

¶20

-2-

¶21

respondents No. 1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and the plaint has been rejected.

¶22

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit to declare the gift deed null and void and for a permanent injunction pertaining to Survey Nos.228/1 and 469/1 situated at village Mohandi, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg.

¶23

Defendants No.1 and 2 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC interalia on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid the ad valorem C ourt fee according to the valuation of the gift deed. The plaintiff filed a reply to the said application and denied the averments.

¶24

Learned trial Court placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. , reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112, granted one month’s time to the plaintiff to affix proper Court fee. The petitioner failed to pay the proper Court fee, therefore, vide order dated 4.11.2024, the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was allowed, and the plaint was rejected.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaint of the petitioner was rejected on account of default, as the plaintiff could not affix the proper Court fee. He would further submit that the provisions of Section 2(2) of CPC would not apply and the writ petition is maintainable.

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the rejection of the plaint according to provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC constitutes a decree as per provisions of Section 2(2) of CPC. Therefore, an appeal would lie, and this petition is not maintainable.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

¶29

The plaintiff challenged the gift deed by filing a civil suit. Defendants No.1 & 2 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The learned trial Court, after considering the submissions made by the respective parties, granted the plaintiff one month’s time to affix the proper Court fee. The plaintiff failed to affix the proper Court fee within the given period, therefore, vide order dated 4.11.2024, the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was allowed and the plaint was rejected.

¶30

Section 2(2) of CPC reads as follows:

¶31

“2 . Definitions .—In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,

¶32

(1) "Code" includes rules;

¶33

(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [* * *] — section 144, but shall not include

¶34

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

¶35

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

¶36

-4-

¶37

Explanation .-A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;”

¶38

A bare reading of Section 2 (2) of CPC would make it clear that rejection of a plaint is deemed decree. The suit of the plaintiff was not rejected on default but it was rejected according to provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. therefore, the contention made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶39

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the office

¶40

objection is sustained, and the petition is dismissed . However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

¶41

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶42

Nimmi

Siddharth Shukla v. Tarkeshwari Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Shukla v. Tarkeshwari Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Leenashree Tiwari Vs Dinesh

Ajay Kashyap Vs Smt. Ganga Kashyap

Maheshwari Yadaw @ Chhoti Yadaw Vs Rajendra Singh

Producin Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bank of Baroda, Vs District Magistrate

Birendra Vs Pratap Singh