IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA ON THE 9thOF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 6805 of 2024
DASRATH SINGH
Versus
SMT. RAMWATI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 5.10.2024 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division, Hata, District Damoh in RCSA No.17/2024, by which, learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by respondents no.1 and 2 / defendants and the petitioner / plaintiff has been directed to pay ad-valorem court fee.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents / defendant before the Trial Court with respect to the suit land on the ground that the sale deed has been executed fraudulently by the respondents no.1 and 2 dated 23.11.2022 by playing deception in the name of a will and further on the basis of the sale deed, they got their names mutated in the revenue records. The respondents no.1 and 2 after notice being served filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the Trial Court contending therein that the petitioner has executed a sale deed dated 23.11.2022 after receiving consideration of Rs.5,66,000/- and the said amount has been shown
1
in the plaint by the petitioner as valuation of the civil suit. However, a very meagre amount of Rs.1000/- at the hand of declaration and further Rs.120/- for perpetual injunction has been paid by the petitioner, despite of the fact that the petitioner being a seller of the suit property, he should have paid ad- valorem court fees. The civil suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for non-payment of proper court fees. The learned Trial court has considered the application and allowed the same and directed the petitioner to pay ad- valorem court fee as he himself sold the suit property to respondents no.1 and and he is also a party to the sale deed.
3. It is argued that as the element of fraud has been pleaded by the petitioner in the plaint contending that the sale deed has been got executed by playing fraud, therefore, he is not required to pay ad-valorem court fees and provisions of Section 7 (4) g of the Court Fees Act have been wrongly applied. The petitioner being an illiterate villager of 87 years was unable to understand the language of the sale deed, therefore, by playing fraud sale deed has been got executed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The record indicates that the petitioner is an executant of the sale deed and thus, the aforesaid fact has not been disputed. Whether the sale deed was executed by way of fraud or not, is the mater to be considered by the trial Court after leading proper evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that the sale deed was not executed by the petitioner. He was a party to the sale deed and his signature is also appearing in the sale deed. Therefore, he cannot raise a plea at the initial stage to avoid the proper payment of court fee.
2
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Learned Trial Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
6. Under these circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court. The order passed the trial court being just and proper does not call for any interference.
7. Moreover, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having a limited scope of interference as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein certain guidelines have been framed by the Supreme Court, which are as under :-
"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner."
8 . Ex-consequenti, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
JP
3
Comments