IP^ IhcyK M9bl?o SLL-IMta DJrD^ln^^ ('ll.'fi) ^l-Ml^lsJ-IPInJ J^ J^^ ^K 1-M 1<> y 'J5j23U<^-iM^ t-^ll& °>lfp,^« ('tt'fl) ^^ll^|9j-l^>l"J J^ Pt^3Fl ^f1K^[PI^J 1^'t" S-^^l-r '^l^ ^. biy^Js InhMiS hhis<t> Mk3> [a(tp •I •z eo-^ ^ibl^jti ^l^ kl^ls ('sMyj.^'a) ^^ii^y-ip^ ^h^l^y-I^^S^ '^'hhM^y c^ya Inl^lbM^P^ ^ 'Pj+plh^ J ^ r^ -..-Q^"<11 i.^^^y^. .^•-^^-•^^•^ ^^^ ^ 6^-fi^ '|^|h?>P?2 +MtiPki3|-- lAk-iltf (^lkM*>a? Mk3>M)S ^Ji St7-fi£^ '|^!hNP3? ^l&lh SSlt^S ^lhM<»33 Mh3> J^yifi SO 'TO-cfelhtfr ^l^fi 1 : Inl^pCblnK^^ [noe/"""S"S"'"" CNh* lnt5[M^ l^|3j^]) ('it'fi) ^kMP|9J Plh^|pR-hl^lhll^ ba.^ J^kLk—iSltl^ (£) --•f-wsst-. .,.^-- fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar IVCshra APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Civil Revision No. 58/2011 Anil Kumar Tahlarmani and another Versus Umesh Kumar Kashyap and another Appearance: Shri M.A. LatifRahman, counsel forthe applicants. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF C.P.C. ORAL ORDER (12.05.2011) Heard. (2) Trial Court has rejected applicants/defendants application under Order 7 Rule 1 1 ofCPC. By the said application the applicants had contended fhat the suit has not been valued properly because the defendant No.l has purchased an area 2450 sq. ft. of land bearin^ khasra No. 423/3 for Rs. 3,67,500/- therefore the suit should have been valued on this amount and the valuation made by the plaintifFis arbitraty and is on disproportionately lower side. It has also been 'stated that fi-dm the avennents made in tfae plaint and from the facts mentioned in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC it would appear fhat the plaintiffs have sold an area of 800 sq.ft. of land in favour of oae Mridula Maheshwari, therefore there is no cause of 'action for filing tlfe present suit. //f'a^ ^ 1 \ ^»-y ••••f' -2 (3) Admittedly, the land is paying land revenue and the plaintiff has therefore valued the suit for possession at 20 times of the land revenue. Similarly, for declaration, the .suit has been valued at Rs. 300/-. Under Section 7 (iv) (c) and (d) oftfae Court Fees Act, 1870 the plaintiff is entitled to value the relief for declaration and injunction on the amount on which he values the relief sought. (4) In the matter of A. KA.CT. V.CT. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.KA.CT. V.CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989 and Abdul Hamid Shamai Vs. Abdul Majid and othere, AIR 1988 SC 11SO the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness ofthe valuation chosen, but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. Further, in the matter of Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thalau- Radha Kfishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar 'Prasad and another, AIR 1987 SC 2085 it has been held that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under clause (c) of Section 7 (iv) ofAct, 1870 the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation ofthe reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for tfie purposes of CQUrt-fee -and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted and it is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively ^ undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the^same. .1 1'^ -3 (5) In view ofthe above, this court is not inclined to entertain this civil revision because the Trial Court has not committed any illegality nor has acted with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction while rejecting applicants application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC. However, the applicant shall be entitled to raise the issue regardinj valuation in his written statement and if such pleadings are made, tlie court shall decide the said issue while trying the suit. (6) With the above observation, the instant civil revision is dismissed. Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge