Ved Prakash Sharma, J.:— This revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for short- ‘CPC’, has been preferred against order dated 26/09/2015, passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch, in C.S No. 63-A/2012, whereby application submitted by the petitioner, who is defendant in the aforesaid Civil Suit, under Order 7 Rule (11)(d) and (c) of CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint, has been dismissed.
2. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was sought on following grounds:-
I. Deficit valuation of the Suit and payment of deficit Court Fee.
II. That the suit is barred by limitation.
III. Suit is not maintainable in view of the Section 257(h) of M.P Land Revenue Code.
3. The learned trial Judge, vide the impugned Order after considering the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the application. The learned trial Judge found that as the disputed sale deed is sought to be declared null and void and that the same has not been executed by respondents or their predecessor-in-interest, therefore, valuation on the basis of sale consideration is not required, nor Court fee is required to paid ad-valoram. As regards plea relating to bar of limitation it was held that being a mixed question of law and fact, the same can not be considered under Order 7 rule (11) of CPC. As regards plea pertaining to bar of Suit under Section 257(h) of M.P Land Revenue Code, it was held that the plaintiff primarily and substantially, has sought the relief of declaration of title, therefore modification in the revenue entries is a consequence of that relief, hence, the Suit cannot be treated as barred under Section 257(h) of M.P Land Revenue Code.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the impugned order is against law, because, the questions suit valuation and Court fee have not been properly considered by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that issue with regard to limitation and bar of the suit has also not dealt with in proper perspective.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent 1 to 5 has supported the impugned Order.
6. On due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents enclosed with the petition including the copy of application submitted under Order 7 Rule (11) CPC, copy of reply filed by the respondent no. 1 and the copy of plaint and written statement, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
7. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule (11), on account of wrong valuation or deficit Court fee is contemplated respectively, under Order 7 Rule (11)(b) and under Order 7 Rule (11)(d), when plaintiff fails to comply the direction of the Court to correct the valuation or to pay the deficit Court fee.
8. In the present case, no such direction has been issued by the learned trial Court, hence, provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(c) and Order 7 Rule 11(d) were not attracted.
9. As regards, plea relating to bar of limitation, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the same is a mixed question of law and fact, hence, it can not be made a ground to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule (11) CPC. Further, the reason assigned by the trial Court not to accept the plea pertaining to bar of suit under Section 257(h) of M.P Land Revenue Code, is also in accordance with law, because, the substantial relief claimed by the plaintiff is the relief of declaration of title.
10. Hence, the impugned Order does not suffer from any illegality, incorrectness and impropriety, therefore, this revision is dismissed in limine.
Comments