Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2025 MPHC-JBP 36505
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • 6 Rule 2(3) of CPC
  • Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 6 Rule 2(3) of CPC.
  • Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2025 MPHC-JBP 36505
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • 6 Rule 2(3) of CPC
  • Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order 6 Rule 2(3) of CPC.
  • Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908.
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Rajendra v. Tilak Chandra

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

    AT JABALPUR

    BEFORE

    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT ON THE 21stOF JULY, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 185 of 2024

    RAJENDRA

    Versus

    TILAK CHANDRA AND OTHERS

    Appearance:

    Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for applicant. Shri Vivek Baderiya - Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent no.7- State.

    ORDER

    Applicant has filed this revision application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging order dated 07.02.2024 by which First Civil Judge, Senior Division Multai District Betul has dismissed his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908.

    2. Applicant is defendant no.1 before the trial Court. He had filed an application for dismissal of the case on grounds that proper court fees has not been paid, there is non-compliance of order 6 Rule 2(3) of CPC i.e. not mentioning the amount in words and figures and not paying ad valorem court fees for declaration of sale-deed dated 23.12.2010 to be null and void. Trial Court has dismissed the application on ground that for declaration of sale- deed which is executed on basis of fraud, no ad valorem court fees is

    1

    (VISHAL DHAGAT)

    JUDGE

    required to be paid. It was further mentioned in impugned order that no specific pleading has been made where words and figures both are to be mentioned.

    3. Heard learned counsel for parties.

    4. Considered the order passed by trial Court dated 07.02.2024. No error has been committed by trial Court in dismissing the plea for ad valorem court fees on relief of declaration of the sale-deed to be null and void. Sale- deed was executed on 23.12.2010. On said date, plaintiff is said to be minor. Fraud has been played upon, therefore, seeking declaration of sale-deed to be null and void will not require ad valorem court fees to be affixed. No error has been committed in not rejecting the plaint on ground that there is violation of Order 6 Rule 2(3) of CPC. It is found that no finding has been given regarding non-payment of court fees on Rs.60,000/- on relief of mesne profit. Mesne profits which are ascertainable at pre-trial stage requires court fee to be paid on presentation and on future mesne profits, court fees is to be paid later on.

    5. In view of same, revision application is partly allowed. Case is remanded back to trial Court to give its finding in respect of non-payment of court fees on relief of mesne profit prayed for by plaintiff.

    6. Certified copy as per rules.nd

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Rajendra v. Tilak Chandra
    (Jul 21, 2025)