Dismissed

Amar Chand and Ors. v. Satva Prakash and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2023CR/560/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a lower court's rejection of a defendant's application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC. The petitioner claimed the suit was improperly valued based on the document rather than market price, citing Narbada. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the petition, holding the valuation according to Section 38 of the Act of 1961 was correct, especially since the Narbada ra

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order dated 25.09.2004.

Amar Chand and Ors. Vs Satva Prakash and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:27082]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 560/2005

Amar Chand and Ors.

----Petitioners

Versus

Satva Prakash and Ors.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rishabh Shrimali
For Respondent(s)	: Nonepresent

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

23/08/2023

¶13

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.7, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.23/2000 whereby the application under Order VII Rules 10 & 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) as preferred by the defendants has been rejected.

¶14

The application aforementioned was preferred by the defendants with the submission that for a suit for cancellation of sale deed, the Court fee has to be paid as per the market value as provided under the Act of 1961 and since the market value of the suit property was more than Rs.25,000/- the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said submission of the

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:27082]

[CR-560/2005]

defendants was based on the judgment passed in Smt. Narbada

¶19

Vs. Smt. Aashi, RLR 1986 Page 673.

¶20

The Court below proceeded on to decide the application on the premise that in terms of Section 38 of the Act of 1961, the valuation of the suit would be the amount as mentioned in the document which has been executed.

¶21

The present revision petition has been preferred on the ground that in terms of judgment of Smt. Narbada (supra), the suit ought to have been valued on the market price and not on the valuation on which the document was registered.

¶22

In the specific opinion of this Court, the present suit has been valued according to the valuation of the document in question i.e. the sale deed, therefore, the same is totally in consonance with Section 38 of the Act of 1961.

¶23

So far as the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Narbada is concerned, the same has been held not to be a good law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna & Anr., 2010 DNJ (SC) 451.

¶24

7. In view of the admitted position that the ratio as laid down in Smt. Narbada’s case (supra) has been held not to be a good law, the sole ground as raised in the revision petition does not require any interference by this Court. The order impugned dated 25.09.2004 being totally in consonance with law also does not deserve any interference.

¶25