Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant no.3, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the learned 2nd C.J.S.D., Aurangabad, rejecting his application (Exhibit-26) for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in RCS No.462/2016. The respondents, original plaintiffs, had filed the suit seeking declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of a suit property ad-measuring 450 feet (East-West) out of survey no.22/2, CTS No.18823 to 18835, claiming that the property had come to the share of Bhagchand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs.13,000/- for court fee purposes, based on the consideration mentioned in sale deeds of 1971 and 1975. The defendant no.3 filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was undervalued and that the court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the valuation for court fee does not determine jurisdiction and that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of undervaluation unless the court finds that the suit is not properly valued and the plaintiff fails to correct it within the time fixed. The court further observed that the valuation for court fee is not necessarily the market value and the suit cannot be rejected on that ground alone. The court also held that the question of jurisdiction based on valuation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without evidence. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Valuation - The court held that the valuation of the suit for court fee purposes does not determine jurisdiction for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of undervaluation unless the court finds that the suit is not properly valued and the plaintiff fails to correct it within the time fixed. (Paras 6-10) B) Civil Procedure - Court Fees - Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - The court observed that the plaintiff's valuation of the suit property at Rs.13,000/- for court fee purposes was based on the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds of 1971 and 1975. The court held that the valuation for court fee is not necessarily the market value and the suit cannot be rejected on that ground alone. (Paras 7-9) C) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The court held that the question of jurisdiction based on valuation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without evidence. The plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of lack of jurisdiction unless it is patently lacking. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned trial court erred in rejecting the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of undervaluation and lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application for rejection of plaint. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Court fee valuation
- Jurisdiction
- Rejection of plaint
- Suit valuation
- Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
