IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 257 Jatinder Singh Gill Nimrat Kaur Mansahia and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of (Annexure P whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petitioner that in dismissing the application of the petitioner, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the Civil Suit was barred by limitation. Moreover, plaintiff/respondent has filed suit for declaration that the sale deeds in respect o Therefore, the plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fe and suit of the plaintiff could not have been entertained till the court fee was af Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 Date of decision : Jatinder Singh Gill Versus Kaur Mansahia and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA J. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel fo petitioner that in dismissing the application of the petitioner, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the Civil Suit was barred by limitation. Moreover, plaintiff/respondent has filed suit for declaration that the sale deeds in respect o herefore, the plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fe and suit of the plaintiff could not have been entertained till the court affixed. Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ivil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) Date of decision :-17.09.2025 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate t revision petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of the order dated 14.7.2023 4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under has been dismissed. submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in dismissing the application of the petitioner, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the Civil Suit was barred by limitation. Moreover, plaintiff/respondent has filed suit for declaration that the sale deeds in respect of the suit land are void. herefore, the plaintiff was required to affix ad valorem Court fee; and suit of the plaintiff could not have been entertained till the court VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the present impugned sale deeds the executants during their of the sale deed preferred by the plaintiffs on 13.6.2019 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction laid to the sale deeds on the grounds of fraud and without possession on the basis of natural succession registered Wills dated 16.10.2015 and 3.3.2016 allegedly executed by executants respectively in favour of the plaintiff No.3 accordingly the suit was under value view of Section 7(iv cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. However, without appreciating the above facts, the application of the dismissed. In support, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in (Civil) 1057 Law Finder Doc Id # 493282. that the impugned order be set aside for the petitioner. file. had filed a suit possession and permanent injunction Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) Ld. Counsel submits that the predecessors the present plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein impugned sale deeds. The said sale deeds were never challenged by the executants during their lifetime. After the death of the sale deeds on 07.2.2016 and 25.10.2017, present suit was preferred by the plaintiffs on 13.6.2019 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land the sale deeds on the grounds of fraud nd without possession on the basis of natural succession registered Wills dated 16.10.2015 and 3.3.2016 allegedly executed by executants Darshan Kaur @ Gurdarshan Kaur and Surinder Singh respectively in favour of the plaintiff No.3 accordingly the suit was under valued for Court fee and jur view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act and for want of any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. However, without appreciating the above facts, the application of the dismissed. In support, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Boda Ram vs. Beermati Devi and others (Civil) 1057 Law Finder Doc Id # 493282. that the impugned order be set aside. No other argument has been advanced by for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents had filed a suit dated 13.6.2019 (Annexure P possession and permanent injunction. The petitioner Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 2 the predecessors-in-interests of /respondents No.1 to 3 herein had executed the . The said sale deeds were never challenged by . After the deaths of the executants on 07.2.2016 and 25.10.2017, present suit was preferred by the plaintiffs on 13.6.2019 for declaration, possession in respect of the suit land. Challenge was the sale deeds on the grounds of fraud, without consideration, nd without possession on the basis of natural succession; and registered Wills dated 16.10.2015 and 3.3.2016 allegedly executed by Darshan Kaur @ Gurdarshan Kaur and Surinder Singh respectively in favour of the plaintiff No.3. It is submitted that for Court fee and jurisdiction in of the Court Fee Act and for want of any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. However, without appreciating the above facts, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed. In support, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Boda Ram vs. Beermati Devi and others 2014 (12) RCR (Civil) 1057 Law Finder Doc Id # 493282. Accordingly, it is prayed No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel counsel and perused the case Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents dated 13.6.2019 (Annexure P-1) for declaration, The petitioner/defendant No.1 VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document had filed an application plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by limitation under Article 59 of the valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The plaintiff had filed the reply dated 24.9.2019 (Annexure P The learne (Annexure P is a mixed question of facts and law. It is the clear mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments that in adjudicating upon an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint can be considered; and even the written statement to the plaint cannot be adverted to. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi Doc ID # 2406865, merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; and that only the averments made in the plaint would be relevant for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In “ (12) SCC 661 CPC, no evidence can be looked would not be within the realm of the Court at that stage; and the Court would not decide any evidence or disputed question of fact or law. Whether or not, there exists a Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) had filed an application dated NIL (Annexure P plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act; and suit is under valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The plaintiff had filed the reply dated 24.9.2019 (Annexure P-3) to the said application of the petitioner. The learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 14.7.2023 (Annexure P-4) has dismissed the application of the petitioner. I find no infirmity in the impugned order as the limitation is a mixed question of facts and law. It is the clear mandate of the Supreme Court in numerous judgments that in adjudicating upon an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint can be considered; and even the written statement to the plaint cannot be adverted to. I find support in my view f judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & Others” Doc ID # 2406865, wherein it has been merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; and that only the averments made in the plaint would be relevant for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In “Kamala & Others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Others” 2008 (12) SCC 661, it is held that in an application und CPC, no evidence can be looked into; issue on merits of the matter would not be within the realm of the Court at that stage; and the Court would not decide any evidence or disputed question of fact or Whether or not, there exists a cause of action in the present case Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 3 dated NIL (Annexure P-2) for rejection of the on the grounds that suit is barred Limitation Act; and suit is under valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The plaintiff had filed the reply dated application of the petitioner. d trial Court vide the impugned order dated 14.7.2023 4) has dismissed the application of the petitioner. I find no infirmity in the impugned order as the limitation is a mixed question of facts and law. It is the clear mandate of the Supreme Court in numerous judgments that in adjudicating upon an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint can be considered; and even the written statement I find support in my view from judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Eldeco Housing and & Others” (SC) : Law Finder wherein it has been held that no evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; and that only the averments made in the plaint would be relevant for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Others” 2008 it is held that in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 into; issue on merits of the matter would not be within the realm of the Court at that stage; and the Court would not decide any evidence or disputed question of fact or cause of action in the present case; VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document or whether the present suit is barred by limitation are of fact and Law, which can only be determined trial upon impugned order. trial Court that the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of fraud. As such, the plaintiff would not be required to pay ad valorem Court fee. upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram and another Singh vs. Jasvir Kaur and others and of this Court in Civil Revision No.5743 of 2019; and Balwinder Singh the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Court, present Authority of India Vs. M/s raja Steel Works and others” Doc. I.D. 10607, date of decision on 11.08.2017” #965439 it fees petition before High Court would be maintainable at the Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) or whether the present suit is barred by limitation are of fact and Law, which can only be determined upon leading of evidence. Thus, no error can be found in the impugned order. Furthermore, I find merit in the reasoning of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of fraud. As such, the plaintiff would not be required to pay ad valorem Court fee. In support, the learned trial Court has r upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram and another in Civil Appeal No.1881 of 2008 Singh vs. Jasvir Kaur and others in Civil Appeal No.4221 of 2023 and of this Court in Jailmal Singh vs. Joginder Singh and o Civil Revision No.5743 of 2019; and Neelam Rani and others vs. Balwinder Singh in Civil Revision No.1879 of 2021. the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Even further, as per the following judgments of present revision petition is not maintainable. In Authority of India Vs. M/s raja Steel Works and others” Doc. I.D. date of decision on 11.08.2017” it is held as under:- “ C. Constitution of India, Article 227 Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 fees-Revision by defendant-Maintainability of petition before High Court would be maintainable at the hands of the defendants, unless t involves the jurisdiction of the Court the issue of Court fee, including its alleged inadequacy, would be primarily between the plaintiffs and the State Defendants cannot be permitted to stall the progress of suit before the learned trial Court, because it is not going to Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 4 or whether the present suit is barred by limitation are mixed questions of fact and Law, which can only be determined by no error can be found in the I find merit in the reasoning of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of fraud. As such, the plaintiff would not be required to In support, the learned trial Court has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh vs. Jagat in Civil Appeal No.1881 of 2008; and Sajjan in Civil Appeal No.4221 of 2023 Jailmal Singh vs. Joginder Singh and others in Neelam Rani and others vs. in Civil Revision No.1879 of 2021. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. the following judgments of this revision petition is not maintainable. In “Steel Authority of India Vs. M/s raja Steel Works and others” Doc. I.D. date of decision on 11.08.2017” Law Finder Doc Id “ C. Constitution of India, Article 227-Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11-Ad valorem Maintainability of-No revision petition before High Court would be maintainable at the hands of the defendants, unless the question of court fee involves the jurisdiction of the Court-It is so said, because the issue of Court fee, including its alleged inadequacy, would be primarily between the plaintiffs and the State- Defendants cannot be permitted to stall the progress of the suit before the learned trial Court, because it is not going to VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document XXX XXX XXX petitioner(s) had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter plaintiffs and the State. permitted to stall the progress of the suit before the learned prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of court fee plaintiffs. Although it may not be an absolute rule in every pay adequate court fee.” Kaur and another Vs. Doc.ID10580 decided on 31.07.2017 reproduced as under: petition at the hands of defendants is not maintainable Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) suffer any kind of prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of court fee paid by the plaintiffs. XXX XXX XXX 23. Further, during the course of hearing, when confronted with as to what kind of prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the defendants by passing the impugned orders, which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned cou petitioner(s) had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Thus, following the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Vimla’s case (supra), Shamsher Singh’s case (supra) as well as by two Full Benches of this Court in Krishan Kumar Grover’s case and Arjan Motor’s case (supra), it is held that no revision petition before this Court would be maintainable at the hands of the defendants, unless the question of court fee involves the jurisdiction of court. It is so said, because the issue of court fee, including its alleged inadequacy, would be primarily between the plaintiffs and the State. 24. Under such circumstances, defendants cannot be permitted to stall the progress of the suit before the learned trial court, because it is not going to suffer any kind of prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of court fee plaintiffs. Although it may not be an absolute rule in every given situation, yet this Court would normally insist asking the defendants to show his locus stand maintain a revision petition before this Court, against an order passed by learned trial court, dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is so said because in the cases where the plaintiffs are claiming tentatively calculated amount, court fee can always be fixed after the court quantifies the amount, asking the plaintiffs to pay adequate court fee.” The observations made in the judgment titled as Kaur and another Vs. Sanamdeep Singh and others Law Today Doc.ID10580 decided on 31.07.2017 Law Finder Doc Id #965380 reproduced as under:- “B. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11-Constitution of India, Article 227 (7 of 1870), Section 7-Sale deed valorem court fees-payment of court fee is a question which is primarily between the plaintiff and the State petition at the hands of defendants is not maintainable Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 5 suffer any kind of prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of 23. Further, during the course of hearing, when confronted of prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the defendants by passing the impugned orders, which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Thus, following the law laid down by Hon’ble the Vimla’s case (supra), Shamsher Singh’s as well as by two Full Benches of this Court han Kumar Grover’s case and Arjan Motor’s case , it is held that no revision petition before this Court would be maintainable at the hands of the defendants, unless the question of court fee involves the jurisdiction of the issue of court fee, including its alleged inadequacy, would be primarily between the 24. Under such circumstances, defendants cannot be permitted to stall the progress of the suit before the learned is not going to suffer any kind of prejudice due to alleged inadequacy of court fee paid by the plaintiffs. Although it may not be an absolute rule in every given situation, yet this Court would normally insist asking the defendants to show his locus standi and right to file and maintain a revision petition before this Court, against an order passed by learned trial court, dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is so said because in the cases where the plaintiffs are claiming alculated amount, court fee can always be fixed after the court quantifies the amount, asking the plaintiffs to The observations made in the judgment titled as “Surjit Singh and others Law Today Live Law Finder Doc Id #965380 is “B. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule Constitution of India, Article 227-Court Fees Act, 1870 Sale deed-Suit for declaration-Ad- payment of court fee is a question which is primarily between the plaintiff and the State-Revision petition at the hands of defendants is not maintainable VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document payment of court fee is a question which is pri in “Ishwar Dayal Sehgal and others Vs. Sunita 08.04.2021, I.D. 16136 CR No.7906 Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) against the order passed by the trial Court dismissing application under Order7 rule 11 CPC.” XXX XXX XXX 5. Further revision petition at the hands of defendants is not maintainable against the order passed by the trial court dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The payment of court fee is a question which is pri between the plaintiff and the State. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Rathnavarmaraja Raja Vs. Smt. Vimla” AIR 1961 SC 1299 has held that the defendant has no right to challenge the aforesaid order by filing appeal or revision.” Further, reliance can be placed on the judgment passed “Ishwar Dayal Sehgal and others Vs. Sunita 08.04.2021, I.D. 16136. The relevant part is extracted as under: “A. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11-Constitution of India, Article 227 Objection to proper court fee Appeal/Revision against-Maintainability of appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable.” 1. “The defendants have filed this revision against an interlocutory order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, dismissed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. The first objection of the defendants is that plaintiff has not affixed prope Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panchkula, has found that the proper court fee has been affixed. Still further, no further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ‘Sri Rathnavarmaraja 1299. xxxxxxxxx 4.In the considered view of this Court, this matter can be examined by the Court while finally adjudicating the suit. Hence, no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article of India is made out.” Reference can also be made to the judgment passed CR No.7906-2018 (O & M) “Ravi Loyal and another Vs. The Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 6 against the order passed by the trial Court dismissing r Order7 rule 11 CPC.” 5. Further revision petition at the hands of defendants is not maintainable against the order passed by the trial court dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The payment of court fee is a question which is primarily between the plaintiff and the State. Hon'ble the Supreme Raja Vs. Smt. Vimla” AIR has held that the defendant has no right to challenge the aforesaid order by filing appeal or revision.” can be placed on the judgment passed “Ishwar Dayal Sehgal and others Vs. Sunita Chattly” decided on . The relevant part is extracted as under: - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule rticle 227-Rejection of plaint- Objection to proper court fee-Dismissal of application- Maintainability of-No further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is “The defendants have filed this revision petition against an interlocutory order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, dismissed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The first objection of the defendants is that plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panchkula, has found that the proper court fee has been affixed. Still further, no further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla’AIR 1961 Sc In the considered view of this Court, this matter can be examined by the Court while finally adjudicating the suit. Hence, no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution Reference can also be made to the judgment passed in “Ravi Loyal and another Vs. The VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Presbyterian Church of on 01.04.2022 from the relied upon judgment in case of same is distinguishable on facts and law. position, the present civil revision September Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) Presbyterian Church of Aotearao.New Zealand and others” decided on 01.04.2022 I.d. 16635, and the relevant extract reads thus: “Constitution of India, Article 227 valorem court fee-Maintainability of revision petition on behalf of defendants complaining deficiency in payment of the Court fee is not maintainable.” 2.In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja Air 1961 (Supreme Court) 1299 on behalf of defendants complaining deficiency in payment of the Court fee is not maintainable.” Learned counsel for the petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied upon judgment in case of same is distinguishable on facts and law. In view of the above noted facts, the present civil revision petition, Pending application(s), if any, shall stand September 17, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Civil Revision No.7667 of 2023 (O & M) 7 Zealand and others” decided relevant extract reads thus:- “Constitution of India, Article 227-Deficiency in ad- Maintainability of revision-Revision petition on behalf of defendants complaining deficiency in payment of the Court fee is not maintainable.” of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt Vimla Air 1961 (Supreme Court) 1299, the revision petition on behalf of defendants complaining deficiency in payment of the Court fee is not maintainable.” Learned counsel for the petitioner can derive no benefit from the relied upon judgment in case of Boda Ram (supra) as the In view of the above noted facts, as also the legal etition, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.19 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document