L Serial No. 07. Case No CRP No.3 of 2009 Order (§) with Signature (s) I PRESENT HONreLE MR. ]usTlcE A. p. SUBBA, ]uDGE Heard Mr. A. Moulik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. G. Sherpa and Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petit:ioners. Also heard Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned State counsel assist:ed by Mr. Santosh Kumar Chettri, Assistant State counsel for the respondent No.2. This is an application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read wit:h Article 227 of the Constitut:ion of India. The facts which gave rise to the present revision, stated briefly, are t:hat the Present respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit bearing number 1/1996 against the present petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge, West at Sikkim at Gyalshing for declaration, cancellation and other consequential reliefs duly valuing the suit at Rs.4001, On hearing t:he parties on t:he preliminary ob].ection raised by the defendants regarding undervaluation and' limitation, the Court came to the conclusion that t:he suit was under valued and accordingly vide order dated 22-08-1997 returned the plaint for presentation before the appropriate Court. However, the plaintiff, the respondent No.1 herein instead of present:ing the plaint before the appropriate Court in terms of the diFection instituted a fresh civil suit being Title Suit No,7/2008 against the present pet:itioners in the Court of District Judge (South and West) at Namchi in the year 2008 for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed, recovery of possession etc. putting the valuation of the suit at Rs.1 lakh. On a preliminary objection raised by the petitioner-defendant SGPG- 3/ High Courv 5000 Nos./ 2.4.2009 Case No CRP No.3 of 2009 Serial No. Orc|er (s) with Signature (s) Owing two preliminary issues were taken up and both parties were heard:- (a) Whet:her t:he Plaintiff has under valued the suit? And if so, is the Plaintiff required t:o revalue the suit and pay the ad valerum Court fee? (b) Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation? After hearing the parties on t:he above issues, t:he learned Court came to the finding that the suit was under valued. However, on' the basis of the Sikkim Darbar Notice No.436/J dated 27-05-1928 cited at the-bar the learned court.` further came to the conclusion t:hat the plaintiff was exempted under the said notice and accordingly obse.rved that the issue stood decided in favour of the plaintiffs. As regards the other issue relating to limitation, the Court having found the same to be mixed question of law and fact left it open for decision at the trial of the suit:. Against the above backdrop the main cpntention` advanced by Mr. Moulik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the learned Court after having come to t:he conclusion that the suit was under valued o.ught to have taken recourse to provisions cont:ained in Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC. However, instead of following the said procedure the. learned Court proceeded further thereby coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was exempted from the payment of Court fees under the above not:ice and posted the matter for filing of W.S, The relevant part of Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC reads as follows:- `r`e±j:.cteRdei;ictti°enfo%w?|agjnct:;esTr.e Plaint ShaH be SGPG- 3/ High Courv 5000 Nos/ 2.4.2009 CRP No.3 of 2009 Case No Serial No. Order (s) with Signature (s) (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the pl'aintiff, on being required by the Court to correct t:he valuation wit:hin a t:ime to be fixed by the court:, fails to do so;" A bare perusal of,the above provision clearly shows t:hat hen the Court comes to the finding that t:he suit is undervalued the next step such Court is required to take is hat it should direct the plaintiff t:o correct the valuation within a specific time frame. The proviso appended to the Rules makes it clear that if no such correction is made within such specific time frame, the Court may proceed furt:her and reject of the plaint. It is hardly necessary to say that the provisions. of this Rule are mandatory. Mr. Jorgay Namkha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 wit:hout disputing the above provisions of law and its binding nature very fairly conceded that he had no objection to the matter being remanded to the learned trial Court for reconsiderations of the issues raised herein. In view of the above, t:his mat:t:er stands disposed of with the following order:- The impugned order dated 28-02-2009 passed in Title Suit No.7/2008 so far it relates to exemption from payment of Court fees st:ands set: aside and the matter is remanded t:o the learned trial Court. Since the Court has already come to t:he finding that the suit is undervalued it shall now follow the rest of the procedure laid down under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC. In other words, the Court shall determine the correct valuation on the basis of t:he materials on record and if necessary require the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in Court fees within a reasonable time frame. On the revaluation of the SGPG- 3/ High Court/ 5000 No§/ 2.4.2009 CRP No.3 of 2009 Case No SGPG. 3/ Hlgh Courv 5000 Nos/ 2.4.2009