THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2520 of 2009 (Dated : 17-11-2009 Between: Sri Ravi Kumar Ohri S/o late Sri Satram Ohri and others ..petitioners A n d Abdul Mannan Khan S/o Abdul Raheem Khan and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2520 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.3.2009 passed in I.A.No.3590 of 2008 in O.S.No.468 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC. 2. The petitioners herein are defendants 2 to 4 and whereas the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.468 of 2008. The plaintiff filed the suit, being O.S.No.468 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking the following reliefs: - a) By canceling the Document, dated 10-12-2005 i.e., Agreement of Sale-cum-G.P.A bearing Document No.20700/2005 by declaring it as illegal and null and void. b) And consequently to declare the document/sale deed dated 1-2-2006 bearing Document No.2236/2006 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. c) And consequently to direct the defendants, their men, agents, associates, relatives, servants etc., to handover the vacant physical possession of the suit plot No.25 forming part of Rohini Layout admeasuring 479.15 sq. yards or 399.93 sq. meters in survey No.64 of Madhapur village, Seri Lingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, bounded on NORTH BY Plot No.24, SOUTH BY: 9 meters Road, EAST by: Park and WEST BY 12-20 mtrs. Road. d) And to pass such other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 3. The defendants 2 to 4 entered appearance and filed written statement. They also filed I.A.No.3590 of 2008 under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay appropriate court fee on the basis of actual market value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. 4. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the court fee has been paid correctly and accordingly, dismissed the said petition, by order dated 30.3.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 6. The revision came to be admitted on 22.6.2009 and interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.468 of 2008 came to be ordered on the even date, vide C.R.P.M.P.No.3495 of 2009. 7. The 1st respondent-plaintiff entered appearance and filed C.R.P.V.M.P.No.6650 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 22.6.2009 passed in C.R.P.M.P.No.3495 of 2009. 8. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the C.R.P is taken up for final disposal. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 submits that under Section 37 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, the plaintiff has to value the property as on the date of filing of the suit, and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in recording a finding that the valuation made by the plaintiff basing on the document bearing No.20700 of 2005 cannot be sustained. In support of her submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Maddi Bal Reddy and others V. Meerugu Anthamma[1], wherein, it has been held that the court fee has to be paid on the present value of the suit property but not on the value of the property on which Court fee was paid in the suit, whose decree is sought to be set aside. 11. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-plaintiff submits that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the document said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4, and therefore, he is not bound by the valuation mentioned in the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Ikramuddin v. Sangram Bosle and others[2]. 12. With regard to the valuation of the properties, it is the contention of the petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 that the plaintiff has not properly valued the property, and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the plaintiff to pay appropriate court fee on the basis of the market value. Even petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 have not placed any evidence to show that the market value is more than the value mentioned by the plaintiff in the suit. However, petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 had already filed written statement taking a plea that the suit is not properly valued, in which case, an issue is required to be necessarily framed as to whether the suit is properly valued by the plaintiff. The trial Court has to necessarily frame an issue as indicated above and adjudicate upon it, without being, in any way, influenced by the observation made in I.A.No.3590 of 2008. 13. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 17-11-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2520 of 2009 (Dated : 17-11-2009 [1] 2002(6) ALD 772 [2] 2007(5) ALD 863