High Court dismissed revision petition seeking rejection of plaint on grounds of deficient court fees. Held that objection to court fees calculation falls under Section 11 of Act, not Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Revision petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file requisite application under Section 11 of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25/2021
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order
19/03/2021
This revision petition is directed against order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
The suit was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking declaration, cancellation of the power of attorney and permanent injunction. Initially petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter-alia claiming that the valuation of the suit and court fees paid were incorrect/deficient and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.
The application came to be dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 24.08.2020 inter-alia indicating that the said aspect can only be determined once the issues are framed.
After rejection of the application, again a fresh application was filed inter-alia indicating that even as per the valuation indicated in the suit i.e. Rs.8,70,000/-, the requisite court fees
(2 of 2)
[CR-25/2021]
comes to Rs.54,975/-, whereas, only court fee of Rs.29,150/- has been paid, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.
The trial court by its impugned order by indicating that as the previous application already stands rejected, the application is in the nature of a review petition and as no case is made out, rejected the application, also observing that all the objections may be raised in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions based on the indications made in the plaint, wherein, the suit has been valued at Rs. 8,70,000/- and the court fees has been paid at Rs.29,150/-, whereas, as per submission of the learned counsel, the court fee comes to Rs.54,975/-.
The submission, even if correct, does not bring the case within the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC based on the objections sought to be raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file application under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and after seeking response from the plaintiff, the trial court was required to decide that application on its merit.
In view thereof, no case for interference in the revision petition is made out, the same is, therefore dismissed.
However, the petitioner may make requisite application under Section 11 of the Act before the trial court and it is expected of the trial court that after seeking response from the plaintiff, it would decide the same appropriately, on merits.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
4-pradeep/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for deficiency in court fees.
Whether an application regarding the correctness of court fees calculation falls under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajmal Bafna
Kanta Devi
Jitendra Singh
The Registration Officer Cum Sub-Registrar, Jhanwar
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
