1 2026:CGHC:10866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 69 of 2025 1 - Smt. Bhumika Chandrakar W/o Shri Pravin Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 935/k Devbaloda, B.M.Y. Charoda, Tehsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.), (Defendant No.-1) 2 - Shri Pravin Chandrakar S/o Nemichand Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 935/k Devbaloda, B.M.Y. Charoda, Tehsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.), (Details Incompletely Mentioned In The Impugned Order), (Defendant No.-2) ... Applicants versus 1 - Anand Singh Chauhan S/o Late Sundar Singh Chauhan Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. J/2, Avadhpuri Colony, Sector-2, Bhathagaon, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.), (Wrongly Mentioned As Sunder In The Impugned Order), (Plaintiff) 2 - Laxman Singh Chauhan S/o Late Sundar Singh Chauhan R/o M.No.-85/86, Babulal Gali, Banjari Road, Suraj Optical, B.L. Plaza, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.), (Defendant No.-3) 3 - Smt. Anisha Chauhan W/o Late Sundar Singh Chauhan R/o M.No.- 85/86, Babulal Gali, Banjari Road, Suraj Optical, B.L. Plaza, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.), (Defendant No.-4) 4 - Arjun Singh Chauhan S/o Late Anil Singh Chauhan Aged About 29 Years R/o M.No.-85/86, Babulal Gali, Banjari Road, Suraj Optical, B.L. Plaza, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.), (Defendant No.-5) 5 - Anikriti Singh Chauhan D/o Late Anil Singh Chauhan R/o M.No.- 85/86, Babulal Gali, Banjari Road, Suraj Optical, B.L. Plaza, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.), (Defendant No.-6) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Durg (C.G.), (Defendant No.7) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/03/2026 1. The instant revision has been filed by the applicants, aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2025, passed by the Learned Second District Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Civil Case No. 48-A/2024, titled "Anand Singh Chauhan v. Smt. Bhumika Chandrakar and Others." The certified copy of the impugned order, dated 10.02.2025, is annexed as ANNEXURE A/01. By this order, the learned Court below has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the CPC. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit on 04.09.2024, seeking a declaration for the nullification of the sale deed dated 03.08.2023, registered on 04.08.2023, and a permanent injunction concerning the property located in Village Charouda, Ward No. 28, Railway Colony, P.H. No. 9, Charouda, Tehsil Bhilai-3, District Durg, (C.G.) with Kh. No. 3 291/23, measuring 0.200 hectares. The plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 6 had executed a power of attorney on 05.06.2023 in favor of defendant No. 2, empowering them to sell or transfer the property. This general power of attorney was duly registered on 21.07.2023 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Patan. On 03.08.2023, defendant No. 2, acting under the power of attorney, executed a sale deed in favor of defendant No. 1, Smt. Bhumika Chandrakar. The plaintiff claims that the sale deed was executed fraudulently as the consideration amount of Rs. 64,04,000/- was never received by them, which was a necessary condition under the power of attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the sale deed, declaring it illegal and void. The plaintiff paid a court fee of Rs. 500 for the declaration and Rs. 500 for the permanent injunction. In response, the applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the plaintiff failed to pay the correct court fee based on the sale deed's value of Rs. 64,04,000/-, paying only Rs. 2500 instead. They argued that the plaintiff, being the seller in the sale deed, should pay the court fee according to the sale deed value, and the case is not maintainable due to insufficient court fees. The applicants also claimed that the sale deed, executed under the valid power of attorney, raised questions about the cause of action for the suit, which was not addressed in the plaint. Additionally, they contended that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant No. 1, in reply, denied the 4 applicants' claims, and the learned trial court, in its order dated 10.02.2025, rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11. The trial court held that the failure of the consideration amount’s payment violated the terms of the power of attorney, making the plaintiff's involvement in the sale deed irrelevant for court fee purposes. The Court also found that the cause of action arose when the consideration amount was not paid, and thus the plaintiff’s suit was not barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The applicants argue that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and therefore, have filed this revision before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiff’s failure to pay the correct court fee in accordance with the sale deed is a material defect that directly impacts the maintainability of the suit. As the value of the sale deed amounts to Rs. 64,04,000, yet the plaintiff has only paid a court fee of Rs. 500, which is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the law. The plaintiff, being a party to the sale deed, is required to pay the court fee based on the actual value of the transaction, and failure to do so renders the suit unsustainable. The learned trial court wrongly concluded that the cause of action arose from the non-payment of consideration, whereas the cause of action for the suit arises from the execution of the sale deed itself. The trial 5 court's decision is arbitrary and does not align with established legal principles regarding the valuation of the suit and the proper affixation of court fees. Furthermore, the court failed to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11, especially considering the violation of the power of attorney’s instructions and the plaintiff’s non-payment of the requisite court fee. It is evident from the registered power of attorney, executed on 05.06.2023, and the sale deed dated 03.08.2023, that the plaintiff is indeed a party to the deed. Despite this, the trial court failed to consider this crucial evidence. In light of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the applicants prays that this revision may be disposed of with directions to the trial Court to frame an issue in respect of the valuation of the suit and the proper affixation of court fees. The trial Court, during the evidence stage, examine the appropriate court fee required, and if, upon proper valuation, the court determines that the matter exceeds its jurisdiction, the appropriate order may be passed. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that they have no objection to the limited prayer made by the applicants in the present revision. The applicants have requested that this Court issue a direction to the trial court to frame an issue regarding the valuation of the suit and the proper affixation of court fees. The counsel for the respondents further submits that they are agreeable to the suggestion that the trial court, at the stage of evidence, may determine the appropriate court fee to be 6 paid in accordance with the value of the sale deed and, if deemed necessary, pass an appropriate order if it is found that the suit exceeds the jurisdiction of the court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the revision. 6. Upon perusal of the facts and submissions, it is observed that the primary issue revolves around the proper court fee payable based on the value of the sale deed. The applicants argue that the plaintiff should pay the court fee in accordance with the value of the sale deed, which is Rs. 64,04,000/-. However, the trial court found that the cause of action arose from the non-payment of consideration, and thus the plaintiff’s involvement in the sale deed was not relevant for court fee purposes. The applicants have contested this finding, asserting that the sale deed itself triggers the cause of action and should form the basis for the court fee. 7. Considering the submissions of both parties, this Court finds that the matter of valuation and affixation of court fees is indeed a crucial aspect that requires proper determination by the trial court. It is essential for the trial court to frame an issue on the valuation of the suit and assess the appropriate court fee to be affixed based on the actual value of the sale deed. This will ensure that the proceedings are in accordance with the legal requirements and that the suit is maintainable. Therefore, after hearing both sides, this Court disposes of the revision petition with the directions to the trial court to frame an issue regarding the 7 valuation of the suit and the proper affixation of court fees, taking into account the sale deed dated 03.08.2023. During the evidence stage, the trial court shall determine the appropriate court fee to be paid in accordance with the value of the sale deed, and if the court finds that the matter exceeds its jurisdiction after the correct valuation, the court may pass the appropriate order in this regard. The trial court is further directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law after resolving the issue of court fees and valuation. 8. The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE