[2025:RJ-JP:32483] aZSDFVHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 3/2025 Mohammad Salim S/o Khaju Khan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Jhilodon Ki Dhani, Udaipur Gilariya, Village Kho-Nagoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ---Defendant-Petitioner Versus Jaitun W/o Imamuddin, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village Kho-Nagoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.) ---Plaintiff-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. with Mr. Laxmi Nivas Koli, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Mathur, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. Lucky Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Ayush Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 20/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, First, Head Quarter Sanganer (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.239/2024, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but the trial court vide order [2025:RJ-JP:32483] (2 of 3) [CR-3/2025] dated 29.11.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the disputed property is not in the possession of the plaintiff. As per the averment mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff acquired the disputed property by way of gift deed from Imammudin Khan. Imammudin Khan is not the owner of the disputed property. He had purchased the said disputed property by way of an agreement. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per the plaint, the valuation of the disputed property is Rs.18,36,545/- but the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.1,000/- only and has not paid the proper court fees. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the SDM has already declared that the defendant is the valid patta holder. This fact was already known to the plaintiff but she filed the suit belatedly. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the trial court be set- aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant because while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be considered. The plaintiff is in possession of the disputed property. She correctly valued the suit and duly paid the court fees. The points of limitation, possession and court fees are to be decided [2025:RJ-JP:32483] (3 of 3) [CR-3/2025] after the evidence of the parties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the valuation of the disputed property is Rs.18,36,545/- but the plaintiff valued the suit at only Rs.1,000/- and has not paid the proper court fees. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff, by cleverly drafting the plaint, undervalued the suit. The plaint value should be as per valuation i.e. Rs.18,36,545/-. So, the trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that the suit is correctly valued and points of limitation, possession and court fees would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The trial court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the competent court after paying requisite court fees. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/71