1 2025:CGHC:33739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 173 of 2025 1 - Mrs. Surjit Kaur W/o Sardar Surjit Singh Hunjan, Aged About 78 Years R/o - 26/899, First Floor Gurugovind Nagar, Gurudwara Road Raja Talab Pandri, Raipur C.G. 2 - Kulwinder Singh Hunjan S/o A. Surjit Singh Hunjan Aged About 51 Years R/o - 26/899, First Floor Gurugovind Nagar, Gurudwara Road Raja Talab Pandri, Raipur C.G. ... Applicants versus Arvind Singh Hunjan S/o Sardar Surjit Singh Hunjan Aged About 53 Years R/o - 26/899, First Floor Gurugovind Nagar, Gurudwara Road Raja Talab Pandri, Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Prakhar Dutt, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. By way of this civil revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, must respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside/quash the YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.19 15:42:32 +0530 2 impugned order dated 03/05/2025 and dismiss the suit by allowing the application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, in the interest of justice. Any other or further order, direction, or relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a registered Gift Deed is illegal, null, void, and not binding upon him. In the said suit, the non-applicant valued the suit property at Rs. 89,48,000/- but paid only Rs. 3,000/- as court fee. The applicant/defendant raised a preliminary objection by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), contending that the court fee paid was grossly insufficient. It was argued that ad valorem court fee is required to be paid under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, ‘Act of 1870’) considering the high valuation of the suit property. The non- applicant/plaintiff denied the objection raised by the applicant and justified the court fee paid. The trial Court, vide its order dated 03.05.2025, dismissed the applicant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC holding that the non-applicant/plaintiff would be granted reasonable time to correct the valuation and the suit shall not be dismissed on the said application. 3. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 3 passed by the learned trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the applicant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by holding that the Court fee paid by the non- applicant/plaintiff is sufficient, despite the admitted fact that the property in question is valued at Rs. 89,48,000/-. It is submitted that the plaintiff/non-applicant has sought a declaration regarding the invalidity of a registered gift deed, which directly affects the title and ownership rights over an immovable property valued at Rs. 89,48,000/-. As such, the plaintiff was bound to pay ad- valorem Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act of 1870, which governs suits seeking declaratory relief affecting rights over valuable immovable property. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to apply the well-settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112. The said judgment clearly distinguishes between an executant and a non-executant of a document. In the present case, since the plaintiff is a non-executant, and is seeking to declare the gift deed as void, he is liable to pay court fee based on the value of the property involved. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that even if the plaintiff is not seeking possession or partition, the declaration sought by him goes to the root of title and ownership of valuable immovable property. Such relief cannot be adjudicated upon without the 4 proper payment of court fees in accordance with law. The impugned order effectively permits the plaintiff to bypass the statutory mandate of the Act of 1870 and the Suit Valuation Act, causing serious prejudice to the applicant/defendant. It also opens the floodgates for plaintiffs to undervalue high-value suits and avoid paying the necessary court fee, which is contrary to public policy and settled legal principles. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that the admitted value of the suit property exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction once properly valued. As such, the suit itself cannot be entertained without proper valuation, and the rejection of the applicant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is contrary to law and suffers from jurisdictional error. The impugned order suffers from material irregularity and jurisdictional infirmity and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court under Section 115 of CPC. The object of the Court Fees Act cannot be permitted to be defeated by allowing the plaintiff to proceed without payment of appropriate Court fees. In light of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow this civil revision, set aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, and direct the dismissal of the suit for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1870. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the documents along with this civil revision. 5 5. Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC: Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC provides for rejection of a plaint at the threshold on certain specific legal grounds. These grounds are purely procedural in nature and are limited to examining the pleadings in the plaint alone, not the defence of the defendant or disputed questions of fact. The grounds include: • When the plaint does not disclose a cause of action; • When the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct it despite opportunity; • When the plaint is insufficiently stamped and the deficiency is not rectified despite opportunity; • When the suit appears barred by law. 6. It is well-settled that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered, and not the defence or any disputed facts raised by the defendant. 7. A mixed question of fact and law is one where the answer depends not solely on the application of legal principles, but also requires determination of disputed factual issues through evidence. Examples include disputes about title, possession, fraud, undue influence, valuation of property, and whether the plaintiff is in possession or not. When such questions arise, they cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold stage without 6 trial, because the Court cannot assume facts or evaluate evidence while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 8. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that where disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact arise, the suit cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Such issues must be adjudicated by the Civil Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence. In the matter of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, the Supreme Court held that Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be invoked only if the plaint on the face of it shows that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action. If the question requires evidence and adjudication, the suit cannot be rejected at the threshold. 9. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, has held that plaint alone must be examined for Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and where the matter involves determination of disputed facts, such application cannot be entertained. 10. In another matter of Kamala vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661, the Supreme Court clarified that where the claim involves mixed questions of law and fact, those issues are to be decided only after evidence is led during trial. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not the proper stage for such an inquiry. 7 11. In the present case, the plaintiff has challenged the validity of a registered gift deed, and disputes exist regarding valuation, entitlement, ownership, and sufficiency of court fees. Whether ad- valorem Court fee applies depends on whether the plaintiff is in possession, his status as executant or non-executant, and the true nature of the relief sought—all of which are mixed questions of fact and law. Such issues cannot be determined at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC because: • They require evidence on possession, title, nature of relief, and valuation. • They require interpretation of the documents and facts after trial. • Order 7 Rule 11 is not meant to prejudge such factual disputes. 12. Therefore, when mixed questions of law and fact arise, such as in this case concerning the validity of the gift deed, valuation, and court fee applicability, these must be adjudicated through proper trial by the Civil Court after framing of issues and allowing parties to lead evidence. It is not a matter to be decided summarily on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 13. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to allow the applicants to file appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, so that the matter may be heard and decided by the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 8 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made on behalf of the applicants is allowed. The applicants are at liberty to file appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC before the trial Court. 15. With the aforesaid observations, this civil revision stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh