7 ^"s^^ ^^^ :.^ ^,^ IN^HE HIGH CDURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ~w=7 CIVIL REVISION N0. /2006 APPLICANTS )EFENDANTS -/NO. 1, 3&4 .<3' ^p- ^ rP^ ^ ^' A' \^.^'^ ^v NON-APPLICANTS /PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS teFENDANTS (1) Smt. Dukala Bai, aged about 80 / years, widow of Shyam Lal Gupta, R/o village Kota, District Bilaspur [C.G]. Vinod Kumar Gupta, aged about 38 years, S/o Laxmi Prasad Gupta, (3) e ^l) Rajesh Kumar Gup'ta, aged about 36 years, S/o Laxmi Prasad Gupta, No. 2 85 3 resident of Mungeli Road, Kududand, Bilaspur, District BUaspur [CG.]. VERSUS Smt. Kusum Bai Gupta, aged about 55 years, wife of Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Resident of Kududand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur [C.G.] (2) Smt. Ambika Bai, aged about 60 years, wife of Durga Prasad Gupta, R/o Kilaward, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur [C.G.]. (3) y Shatrugan Prasad, aged about 48 X years, son of Late Shyam. Lal Gupta, R/o Krishna Nagar Ward, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur [C.G.]. (4) Smt. Nirmala Bai, aged about 46 years, wife of Krishna Kumar Gupta, Resident of Krishna Nagar Ward, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur .[C.G.] (5) Jagdish Prasad Gupta, aged about 57 years, son of Rambharos Gupta, Resident of C/o Jagdish Kirana Sotres, main road Kududand, Bilaspur [C.G.]. 7 ) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Bilaspur. CIVIL RBVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE /T-AM, XI-HC-78 3TT^rT^Tf^ri^ c^TT3TT^?T9h^lcn 3^^TPT^^/WtWrTS, fa^l^y ^..<.A;.. /<g3, tTTq^fTSt»*11cb ^ 200 C ani^q^F (l5^3^T) ^cTTW: ^rf?cT W^T 08/12/2006 Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Heard. in the peculiar facts ar|c Revision, it is being dispos^J o^ Brief facts are that t^ Gupta instituted a Civil Suit N4. Biiaspur praying for the relief o1] mentioned in Scheduie-A and No. 7 is not the tenant of entitled to partition of 2/121ft schedule-() to (). Relief of issi] fhe defendant No. 4 from interN of the plaintiff over the prop|< mandatoiy injunction for furnishi The piaintiff vatued the | purposes of jurisdiction valued Rs.12,50,000/-. However, the| that she was affixing Court fee af The defendant No. 1 to 2) under Order Vfl Ruie 11 ofC objection that fhe reliefs claimed| The tearned District Judd the said application under Or<j deciding it on merits hetd that tht be decided without recording evi iiable to rejection at that stag^ tearned District Judge disposed | 11 of the C.P.C. In this manr <=hl^Td41^ ^l^ldT^'te^^^K ^3Tf^T3TI^T ounsel for the petitioner, circumstances giving rise to this .Civit without notice to the respondente. plaintiff/respondent Smt. Kusum Bai 14-A/2006 in the Court of Ch/ii Jud@e, declaration of titie over the suit property ilso for a declaration that the defendant defendant No.4 and that the plaintiff was s^are of the suit property mentioned in jance of permanent injunctton restraining ^ring in any manner wi i the possession <erty mentioned in Schalufe-A and a |ig the accounts, was also sought. jsuit property at Rs.80,00,000/- and for he suit at 2/12th share of 80,00,000/- i.e. piaintiff mentioned in para 20 of plaint Rs.1060/- only for the aforesaid reliefs. and 6 fiied an application (Annexure A- I.P.C. on 29.7.2006 raising a preliminary |by fhe plaintiffwere under vafued. |e, Bilaspur after hearing argumente on Ker Vff Rufe 11 of C.P.C. instead of T|equesfion ofvaiuation ofsuit coyid not i^enoe and on this grounci piaint was nof i^. With the aforesaid observation, the i |of the application under Order Vil Rute ^,Jh^Dlstrict Judq^ f^iled tn ^ XI-HC-78 3=5ET ^|^||d<4, ^TH<MII<o, f^^l^y C. ^ t^w I S! t- *fTR<rll Sb+licti ^200^ OT^ToFTf^TW cT8TT3TR?T9h^lGh ^a^ftv^ an^r'cra^ (*ic<^G'^) ?^<TTW ^f?cT W^T As held in Salim Bhai <=hi^?d41^ wraY ^ fel^t <(^^i< ^^rf^TW^T junsaiction vested in the coi^rt as weli as committed a procedural irregularity. & Others Vs. State of MaharastRa & Others; 2003 SAR (Civil) 86, <he reievant facts which need to be tooked into for consideration for decidijig an application under Order Vtl Rule 11 of the C.P.C. are the avermei|rts in the piaint and the Trial Court can exercise the power under Ordej suit before registering the p| defendant. For the purposes oi • VI i Ruie 11 of C.P.C. at any stage ofthe aint or after issuing summons to the deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order Vljl C.P.C., the averments in the plaint are germane; the pfeas taken by|the defendant in the written statement would be whoify irrelevant aftt^at stage, therefore, a direetion to file the written statement without decjc$ng the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be prc jurisdiction by the triat court. juraf irregularity touching the exercise of The order, therefore, suffers from non- exercising of the jurisdiction v^sted in the court as well as procedural irregularity. In this view of the maN under order Vli Rule 11 of C.P.I r, at the stage of fiting of an application D., and before fiiing of written statement the learned District Judge was r4quired to consider whether on accepting the vatuation put by the plaintiff] on its face value, the piaintiff wi under Section 8 of the Suits Va |for purposes of jurisdiotion of the Court, ^s required to pay advatorem Court fee [uation Acf. In view of the prindple laid down by the Apex Court in Saltnji Bhai & Ofhere (supra), fhe impugned order is unsustainable in law. The learned District Judg afresh on the appiication under defendants and to pass an order s, Bitaspur is directed to hear the parties prder VII Ruie 11 of C.P.C. filed by the |as to whether the reliefs ciaimed by the XI-HC-78 CT^T^T^i^ c^TT3TR5T9b^|ct) \^^ Kvr TST^PTI^PT, ^Tn<l4l(o, RcrtKiy C. K, l^o i^^ tTTRdl Sb*1ich ^ 200 (> 3TT^Txra^F? (^t^^T) ^RTTW^R^W^T - "^ plaintiffs were on the face c| purposes of Jurisdiction under whether the plairrtiff was requj reliefs ctaimed. the valuation put by the plaintiffs for ^alued for purposesof court fees and if so red to pay advaiorem court fees on the M.(C).P. No. 2173/200^ chi^Td41-i wT^y^te^'<^^i< ^3=rf^T3TT^T With the aforesaid obs^r^ation, this Civil Revision is ailowed. for grant of stay also stands disposed of. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Dcshmukh Judge