IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2005 Majidkhan Imadkhan Pathan ... Petitioner V/s Shri Rakesh Shadilal Gupta & ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.N. Joshi for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2006 DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2006 DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents inspite of service of notice to the effect that the matter shall be heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order passed by the Trial Court dated 23.9.2005 dismissing his application Exh.45 by virtue of Order VII Rule 11 (b) & (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 4. The petitioner had earlier filed the Civil Revision Application No. 384 of 2003 challenging the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the competent authority, Pune, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. contending that the plaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable and as it did not disclose the cause of action, neither the reliefs claimed were followed nor the Court fees had been paid. In the course of hearing of that revision application, this Court by order dated 9.12.2004 allowed the revision application observing that the competent authority was undisputedly a Court within the meaning of the said expression of Order VII Rule 11 and, therefore, the provision under the Suit Valuation Act and Court Fees Act and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent to disclose the valuation of the relief asked for and to pay proper Court fee thereon. Thereafter the advocate for the respondent sought leave to amend the plaint in that regard to pay Court fee within a period of six weeks. Considering that aspect, the petition of the present petitioner was allowed holding that the provision of Suit Valuation and/or Court Fees Act were applicable to the proceeding before the competent authority and further granted six weeks time to the 3 respondent to amend the plaint disclosing the valuation of relief asked for and pay appropriate Court fee thereon. 5. When the petitioner observed that inspite of granting of time of six weeks the present respondent had not complied with the order of the Court to make amendment and payment of Court fee stamps and he made application under Order VII Rule 11 Sub-Rules (b) & (c) of the C.P.C. calling upon the competent authority to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 sub-rule (b) & (c) of the C.P.C. The competent authority, after hearing the parties concerned, passed order below Exh.45 rejecting the application. Hence the present petition. 6. In fact, once this Court had passed order in Revision Application No. 384 of 2003 regarding its finding to the effect that the competent authority was a Court within the meaning of expression under the provisions of relevant laws, namely, the Suit Valuation Act as well as the Court Fees Act, then the competent authority had no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by this Court in order to entertain a purshis by 4 the respondent to the effect that he was not willing to press the mandatory claim in para 6 styled as "Particulars of the Claim". In other words, basically it was not competent for the respondent to go beyond the order passed by the Court and when leave was granted to that effect to amend the claim and to pay the Court fees and it was the duty of the respondent to act accordingly. In respect of the plea that the plaint is liable to be rejected, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to put reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company & M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company & M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company & ors. v/s Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, reported in A.I.R. 1988 ors. v/s Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, reported in A.I.R. 1988 ors. v/s Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, reported in A.I.R. 1988 SC 1636, SC 1636, SC 1636, wherein it was held that once the Court had granted leave to amend the plaint and pay the Court fees stamps and if the concerned party does not correct the valuation within the time allowed, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Referring to the provision of Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the C.P.C. it was observed that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Courts, fails to do so. This exactly what has happened in the present case and, therefore, I have no 5 doubt whatsoever that the impugned order passed by the competent authority is liable to be struck down. Rule is made absolute. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b) and stands disposed of with no order as to costs. .....