SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 29.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Rajat Dave, for the petitioner. Mr. MC Bhoot, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 3rd July, 2008 whereby the trial court observed that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the relief no.3,4 and 5, therefore, the plaintiff should properly put the value for the relief no.3,4 and 5 and, thereafter, pay the proper court fees stamp for the said reliefs. It will be worthwhile to mention here that respondent no.2 defendant raised an objection about the improper suit valuation then the trial court vide order dated 14.8.2007 rejected the respondent no.2's objection. The respondent no.2 preferred SBCWP No.6298/2007 which was SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 2 decided by the learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 5th Nov., 2007 after observing that the same objection was raised by the petitioner-defendant (respondent no.2 in this petition) before the trial court on earlier occasion with respect to the suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. That application though was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and that was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 29th May, 2007. This Court observed that petitioner cannot be permitted to take pleas about the jurisdiction of the court on the ground of valuation of the suit in peace meal and, therefore, the writ petition no.6298/2007 was dismissed by this Court. Being aggrieved against the said order dated 5th Nov., 2007, the respondent no.2 preferred DBSAW No.1035/2007. The said special appeal was allowed with the following observations: “We have considered the submissions, and find, that in view of the language of Section 26(a), coupled with the fact that the objection is likely to have the effect of effecting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court, the learned trial court is required to decide the application SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 3 (Annex.3) filed by the appellant before the learned trial court, on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that any observations made in this order need not be taken by the learned trial court to be expression of any opinion on the part of this Court, about existence or otherwise of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court, or about the valuation of the Court fees, or about the extent of Court fees like to be paid.” This Court directed the trial court to decide the application on merits in accordance with law. In view of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, the trial court decided the respondent no.2's application filed under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Stamp Valuation Act, 1961. The trial court after going through the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit held that so far as relief no.1 and 2 are concerned, they are relief for grant of injunction only and the suit has properly been valued for these reliefs. So far as reliefs nos. 2,4 and 5 are concerned, they have not been valued in accordance with the Act of 1961. Instead of specifically directing the plaintiffs to properly value the suit by amending the plaint SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 4 so as to put valuation for the reliefs nos.3,4 and 5, the court straightway directed the plaintiff to pay stamp duty also for the reliefs nos.3,4 and 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff the suit has been properly valued by the plaintiff-petitioner as the reliefs claimed are of injunction and other reliefs claimed in relief no.3 is required to be read with the final relief claimed in the same para of the relief. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is not knowing how much amount the defendant no.1,-respondent no.2 has collected and deposited in the bank for which the plaintiff has claimed decree for the said amount in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant no.1. It is also submitted that relief no.4 is also properly claimed relief for which the plaintiff need not to pay ad-volerum court fees either on subject matter of the suit or on the valuation of the registration certificate, cancellation of which has been sought. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the trial court has only directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly in accordance with the Act of 1961. The plaintiff, therefore, has not been asked to do SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 5 more than that. It is also submitted that once the plaintiff will value the suit properly then only the defendant as well as the court will know whether the proper stamp duty has been paid or not. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. As provided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC where the relief claimed is under valued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so then the court can reject the plaint itself. By this order, the trial court directed the plaintiff only to value the suit properly and pay the court fees according to the valuation as per the Act of 1961. The valuation for reliefs nos. 3,4 and 5 has not been determined by the trial court and that has rightly been not done so. The trial court itself was of the view that the plaintiff has not valued the suit for reliefs nos. 3,4 and 5. Once the plaintiff will put valuation of each relief separately as per the direction of the trial court vide order dated 3rd July,2008 then only the defendant and court will know whether the suit has been properly valued after direction of the court SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 6 and court fees has been paid in accordance with the Act of 1961 or not. Sub-clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order 7 requires fixing a time for payment of the court fees by the plaintiff failing which, the suit can be dismissed, therefore, that can be done when suit is not valued by the plaintiff. When suit is valued by the plaintiff and the courts come to the conclusion that there is insufficient court fees paid then court may give more time to the plaintiff to pay the court fees and after that opportunity, if the plaintiff did not pay the court fees, the suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. That all yet to be done in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner's contention that reliefs are not of declaration of title or of refund of money are concerned, that does not much dependent upon the argument, but depend upon the plain language used for the relief in the plaint. When the relief is unambiguous and clear then it is plaintiff to look into his reliefs claimed and assess the valuation of the suit in accordance with the Act of 1961 for which he may take his appropriate stand appropriate to his foundation for seeking relief, but the plaintiff is required to pay the court fees for the relief SBCWP No.6031/2008 Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti & Ors. 7 claimed by the plaintiff. When several reliefs are claimed, each relief is required to be valued in accordance with the Act of 1961. In view of the above reasons, I do not find that the court below has committed any illegality in directing the plaintiff to value the suit and to pay the court fees thereafter. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed being devoid of merit. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-