1 2025:CGHC:4261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 78 of 2024 1 - Shivratri Wife Of Mahendra Aged About 65 Years Caste - Panika, Resident Of Village - Mohanpur (Aanchhidadar), Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Defendants) 2 - Bhagwat Son Of Tulsi Das Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village - Jurali, Tahsil - Podi-Uproda, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sohan Das Son Of Rameshwar Das Aged About 48 Years Caste - Vaishnav, At Present Resident Of Chhurikala, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Satish Jaiswal Son Of Late Amrit Lal Aged About 43 Years Caste - Kalar, Resident Of Purani Basti, Katghora, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Up-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Mohanpur, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Savitri Bai Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Mohanpur, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Pushparaj Singh Raj Patwari, P.H. No. 1, Mohanpur, R.I.C. Jawali, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tahsildar Katghora, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Res No.1/plaintiff : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Res No.4 : Mr. S. P. Sannat, Advocate. For Res No.6 & 7 /State : Mr. S. K. Puriya, PL. For Res No.2 & 3 : None. SB.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 23.01.2025 1. This revision has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI 2025.01.24 10:48:37 +0530 2 Katghora, Korba in Civil Suit No.98-A/2022, whereby, objection application filed by the applicant/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC regarding valuation of the suit, has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title in respect of the subject property and also claimed for refund of the compensation amount received by the defendants in the land acquisition proceeding. The said amount has been estimated at Para 13 of the plaint to the tune of Rs.23,60,000/-. However, the plaintiff has made valuation of Rs.1000/- only and affixed the court fees accordingly. Therefore, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC and raised an objection that the suit is undervalued and no proper Court fees has been paid. However, the trial Court dismissed the said objection by holding that the said issue shall be considered after framing of the issues. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant would submit that though the suit has been filed in declaratory form but it has been mainly filed for refund of compensation received by the defendant in land acquisition proceedings. He submits that looking to the amount claimed by the plaintiff, it is apparent that no proper valuation has been made in the suit and proper court fees has also not been affixed. In support of his contention he places reliance on the matter of Rattan Lal Joshi Vs. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari and Ors [AIR OnLine 2024 Punjab and Haryana 370] and prays to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff supports the order impugned. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. It is well settled that if the suit has been filed for declaration in which the claim for compensation has also been made and no valuation is made with regard to such compensation, it is the duty of the Court take suitable steps to correct the valuation. 7. After going through the plaint averments, it is explicit that the plaintiff has sought relief for refund of compensation amount which, was received by the defendant in the land acquisition proceeding and further at Para 13 of the plaint, the amount has been calculated to the tune of Rs.23,60,000/-. However, the valuation has been made only to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Thus, the suit has been wrongly valued and the Court fees has also not been affixed properly. 8. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that impugned order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set-aside. 9. It is directed that the trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the plaintiff to file an appropriate application to correct the valuation and court fees. Thereafter, the concerned Court shall decide such application and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 10.With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay