1 2025:CGHC:824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 2 of 2025 1 - New Life Health And Education Society Through- Its Chairman Sant Kumar Jaiswal, Age About 60 Years, R/o Bachra Pondi, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea ( C.G.). ( Defendant No. 1 ) 2 - Smt. Vandana Sharma W/o Prince Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years Secretary, New Life Health And Education Society, R/o M.L.A. Nagar, Baikunthpur, District- Korea ( C.G.). ( Defendant No. 2 ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dr. Rakesh Sharma S/o Late Chandrashekhar Sharma Aged About 64 Years ( Plantiff No.1 ) R/o Ward No. 09, Baikunthpur, District- Korea ( C.G. ). 2 - Dr. Sankalp Sharma S/o- Dr. Rakesh Sharma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Baikunthpur, District- Korea ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board 07.01.2025 1. This Revision has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Baikunthpur, Korea in Civil Suit No.03-A/2024, whereby, objection raised by the AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.01.08 11:33:45 +0530 2 applicants/defendants by way of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents have filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction, possession and for recovery fo license fees. In the said suit, the present petitioners have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It has been averred that earlier the petitioners have moved an application for fixation of rent and supply of electricity before the Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur but of no avail. Thereafter, a WPC No.4164/2013 has been preferred by the defendants before the High Court and thereafter supply of the electricity has been restored. It was also observed that against the order of rent fixation, a proper remedy lies before the Rent Control Tribunal. Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred before the Rent Control Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that no order has been passed by the Rent Control Officer. Since the petitioner has preferred the application before the wrong forum so final order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, on 04.09.2024 the petitioner again moved an application before the Rent Control Authority for fixation of rent of subject building which is still pending consideration. The petitioner has further raised objection that suit has not been properly valued and proper court has not been affixed. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. However, the trial Court has rejected the said objection. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for fixation of Rent, an application is already pending consideration before the Rent Control Authority, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. He also submits that 3 suit has not valued as per market rate of the subject property and no proper court fees has been affixed, therefore, the trial Court has committed grave error in rejection objection raised by the petitioners. In view of such submission, he prays to allow the revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Admittedly, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction, possession and for recovery of license fees in respect of subject property which is a building situated at Baikunthpur. In the said suit, the defendants have raised an objection that the suit has not been valued properly as per market rate and proper court fees has not been affixed. However, in such nature of suit, for valuation purpose, the suit is not required to be valued according to market rate of the subject property. Further, in a suit for mandatory injunction and directing delivery of possession of the disputed property on the pleadings of the license fees, the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit and affixed the court fees. 6. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that objection raised by the defendants is baseless and the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay