1 2025:CGHC:43053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 219 of 2025 1 - Sohan Lal Rathi S/o Late Jograj Rathi Aged About 58 Years R/o Sinent City Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Ramchand Rathi S/o Late Jograj Rathi Aged About 60 Years R/o Vandana Vihar Colony, Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Saurabh Rathi S/o Shri Sohan Rathi Aged About 31 Years R/o Sinet City Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Devi D/o Late Jograj Rathi Aged About 65 Years (Wrongly Type As Radi) R/o 35 Sinent City Ratnabandha Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Umakela W/o Shri Bhawarlal Kela Aged About 62 Years R/o Sanjha Chowk Kurud Tahsil Kurud And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Meena Gandhi D/o Late Jograj Rathi Aged About 53 Years R/o Mahesh Colony Durg Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Jyoti Malpani D/o Late Jograj Rathi Aged About 46 Years Bankhedi Post And Tahsil Pipariya District - Narmadapuram Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hoshangabad (M.P.) 5 - Smt. Kanta Rathi W/o Shri Sohan Rathi (Wrongly Typed As Radi) R/o Sinet City Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balod District - Balod (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Rashmi Agrawal W/o Shri Sanjay Agrawal Aged About 35 Years Maitri Vihar Colony Mahant Ganshi Das Ward Dhamtari Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of lower courts below and set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Learned Second District Judge, Balod, District-Balod (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class 3 A/05/2024, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 05.08.2024, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil Suit seeking Declaration of Title, Permanent Injunction, Partition and Separate Possession in respect of the suit properties situated in different villages. The first property is at Village Amadi, Tahsil Dhamtari, bearing Khasra Nos. 701/3, 703/4, 701/9, 701/6, 701/1, and 701/7, admeasuring 7.60 acres in total, with present land records standing in the name of applicant Sohan (Khasra Nos. 1636, 1668/2, 2111/3, admeasuring 0.69 hectare) and Khatedar Kanta Rathi W/o Sohan Rathi (Khasra No. 223/2 admeasuring 0.263 hectare), the second property is at Village Devkot, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra Nos. 102, 121, 122/2, 123, 124, 125/1 and 125/2, admeasuring 5.06 hectare in total, the third property is at Village Bohara, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra Nos. 35, 37, 56/1, 56/5, 56/7, 57/1 admeasuring 1.11 hectare, the fourth property is at Village Titurgahan, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra No. 301 admeasuring 0.53 hectare, the fifth property is at Village Padkibhat, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra No. 198 admeasuring 0.52 hectare and the sixth property is at Village Sanaud, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra Nos. 23/6, 323/2, 440/3, admeasuring 0.53 hectare. The applicants/defendants No. 1, 2 and 7 have filed their Written Statement denying all averments of the plaint, while 4 on the same day, defendants No. 3 to 6 also filed their Written Statement denying the plaintiff’s claims. Thereafter, on 24.01.2025, defendant No. 10 too filed his Written Statement denying the averments. On 15.01.2025, the applicants/defendants No. 1, 2 and 7 further moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the plaintiff had not provided a proper description of the suit properties, nor had he correctly valued them, particularly pointing out that the property situated at Village Devkot, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra No. 125/2 admeasuring 0.13 hectare, with a house and godown constructed thereon, is valued at Rs. 40,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- respectively, as evident from the Gift Deed and Sale Deed, and that adequate Court Fee had not been paid. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff thereafter filed a reply to the said application, denying the allegations and asserting that full details of the suit lands had been furnished and proper valuation was made, thus the application deserved dismissal. However, on 24.04.2025, the learned trial court, without properly considering the facts and material available on record, wrongly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thereby passing an impugned order which is illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, this 5 revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Balod, in Civil Suit Class A/05/2024 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which mandates rejection of plaint where the cause of action is not disclosed or the relief is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation, in the present case, the plaintiff himself admitted that the valuation of the suit property exceeds one crore rupees, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, yet the court erroneously proceeded with the matter and further erred in holding that the court fee was rightly assessed on the basis of “Logan (Royalty)” of the land, whereas the suit property situated at Village Devkot, Tahsil Gurur, bearing Khasra No. 125/2 admeasuring 0.13 hectares, being diverted land with a house and godown constructed thereon, ought to have been valued strictly on the basis of market value as required under the Court Fees Act, 1870. Since the plaintiff has not paid adequate and proper court fees and the trial court has failed to direct correction of the valuation or reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the impugned order suffers from serious jurisdictional error and is therefore liable to be set aside, 6 and it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the courts below and quash the said order in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commercial Aviation and Travel Company Inc. (supra) held in para 9 of its judgment as under: “9. In this connection, we may refer to the provision of order VII, Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, inter alia, that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. It is manifestly clear from the provision of Order VII, Rule II(b) that a Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued, which necessarily means that the Court is able to decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief and, after determination of the correct value of the relief, requires the plaintiff to correct his valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court. If the plaintiff does 7 not correct the valuation within the time allowed, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The question is whether in a suit for accounts simpliciter, the Court can come to a finding as to the proper and correct value of the relief until the final determination is made. In our opinion, ordinarily it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to determine the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter. If the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him. Indeed, in a suit for accounts it is also difficult for the Court to come to a finding even as to the approximate correct valuation of the relief. In such a case, the Court has no other alternative than to accept plaintiff's valuation tentatively.” 7. In the present case, it is evident that the applicants have filed written statement and filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, but as per averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs have paid court fee as per description of the suit property and since written statement is filed by the defendants, this objection regarding ad valorem court fee is premature. 8. Thus, keeping in view the the principles of law laid down by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above matter and the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be said 8 to be erroneous or perverse and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. However, the applicants are at liberty to amend and raise all the issues regarding proper Court Fees and the trial Court after consideration frame issue regarding the valuation of the suit and court fees and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 9. With this observation, the civil revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat