[2025:RJ-JP:19296] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 297/2024 Yogesh Meena S/o Bharat Bhushan Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 207, Kumhar Gali, Ektasa Tehsil Asnawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Paramjeet Singh S/o Shri Aaya Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Colony, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.) 2. Up Panjiyak, Jhalawar (Jhalrapatan) District Jhalawar (Raj.) 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Mohadya, Jhalawar (Raj.) 4. Kailash S/o Gyarsiram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jhirniya Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar 5. Kalibai W/o Gyarsiram, R/o Village Jhirniya Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) 6. Durgabai D/o Gyarsiram W/o Raju, R/o Village Jhirniya Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar 7. Lakhan Bheel S/o Devishankar Bheel, R/o Bheel Mohalla, Godam Ki Talai, Behind P.w.d. Office, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anubodh Subodh Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 08/05/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Jhalawar (for short [2025:RJ-JP:19296] (2 of 4) [CR-297/2024] 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 97/2024 titled as "Paramjeet Vs. Yogesh Meena and Ors.", whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for declaring sale deeds dated 12.01.2024 and 01.09.2022 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court that plaintiff had not properly valued the suit. By way of present suit, he wanted to declare sale deeds dated 12.01.2024 and 01.09.2022 which valued at Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- respectively as null and void. So, valuation of suit should be Rs. 18,00,000/-. He valued the so-called sale deeds at Rs. 50,000/- each total Rs. 1,00,000/- and filed the present suit before Civil Judge, Jhalawar. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that on account of valuation of both the sale deeds amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/-, present suit is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the trial Court be directed to return the plaint for its presentation before the proper jurisdictional Court. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 28.05.2009 passed by this Court in the case of "Ram Narayan and Ors. vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Mandalgarh & Anr." in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6721/2003. [2025:RJ-JP:19296] (3 of 4) [CR-297/2024] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that plaintiff was not a party in the sale deed. So, he rightly valued the valuation of both the sale deeds at Rs. 50,000/- each. Therefore, the suit falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge and regarding deficiency of the court fees, the trial Court rightly observed that it is a mixed question of law and fact which would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendant be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments 1. "Amrit Lal and Ors. Vs. Heera Ram and Anr." in civil revision petition No. 39/2016 decided on 18.05.2016. 2. "Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors." in civil appeal Nos. 2811-2813/2010 decided on 29.03.2010. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that by way of present suit, the plaintiff wanted to declare sale deeds dated 12.01.2024 and 01.09.2022 which was registered at valuation of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- respectively as null and void. So, in my considered opinion, valuation of the suit should be Rs. 18,00,000/. It does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge. Plaintiff deliberately valued the valuation of the sale deeds at Rs. 50,000/- each. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:19296] (4 of 4) [CR-297/2024] defendant. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside. However, the trial Court is directed to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff to present the same before the proper jurisdictional Court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/104