Judgment:
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. The matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.
2. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as 'the Code', for brevity, wherein the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have called in question, the legality of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). Rourkela in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 refusing the prayer of the defendants to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on the ground of gross under valuation of the suit.
3. The simple facts giving rise to this revision application are that the opp.party No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rourkela seeking the declaration that he and defendant Nos. 3,4, & 5 are the real owners of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession and to declare the Sale Deed No. 26362 dated 12.6.2007 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to be null and void. It is undisputed at the stage that the sale deed in question involves a consideration of Rs.8,80,000/-, the plaintiff valued his relief at Rs.8,000/-and filed the suit before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rourkela. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2/petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code to reject the plaint on the ground that it is grossly undervalued. While disposing the application of the defendants/petitioners, the learned lower Court held that the matter relates to both fact and law. It further held that the sale deed in question is challenged by the plaintiff on its authenticity, and the trial of the Court has not yet started. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) further held that the contents of the sale deed in question cannot be accepted without corroborative evidence from either party. It was further observed that on the other hand, the defendant may enter their objection in their pleadings so that issues may be framed accordingly and may be answered on full trial. Holding thus, the learned lower Court rejected the petition of the defendants/petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the orders of the learned lower Court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has filed the xerox copy of the Registered Sale deed as a document relied on by him. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the sale deed indicates that the suit property has been valued at Rs.8,80,000/-. The said valuation is the Govt, valuation upon which the document has been registered. Assailing the findings of the learned lower Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested upon him by the Statute and has passed the impugned order, it is further submitted that if the application of the defendants is allowed, it will finally dispose of the suit before the learned lower Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit should be valued as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It is also submitted that though the plaintiff is at liberty to value his. suit, there should be nexus between the valuation of the relief and the market value of the property in question.
5. The learned Counsel for the opp.party on the other hand supports the finding recorded by the learned lower Court and submits that the revision application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is at liberty to value his suit at his sweet will and the same cannot be challenged by the defendant and the question of valuation . and payment of Court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the State. The learned Counsel for the O.P. further submitted that such a question cannot be decided in a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
6. The issue as to whether a defendant in a suit has a right to question the valuation arises everyday in Court. Valuation of the suit is not only for the purpose of paying the Court fee but it also plays an important role for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code mandates for rejection of the plaint in case the relief claimed is under valued, and the plaintiff is required by the Court to correct the same, fails to do so within the stipulated period. Section 12 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 deals with the decision of question as to valuation and it provides that such an issue shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint is filed and such decision shall be final between the parties to the suit. Thus, it is evident from the provision of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 that the decision taken by the Court on such an issue shall be final between the parties, but, in case, the superior Courts while exercising the Appeal or Revision jurisdiction came to the conclusion that the issue has wrongly been decided to the detriment of the revenue, it can direct the party to make the deficiency good for the reasons that the object of the Act is not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality but to secure the revenue. The finality is, however, with respect to arithmetical calculation and not with respect to classification i.e., category under which the suit falls, vide Nemi Chand and Anr. v. Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. : AIR 1953 SC 28.
7. In Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettlar : AIR 1958 SC 245, the Supreme Court has held :
Normally the dispute between the litigant and the Registry in respect of Court fees, arises at the initial stage of the presentation of the plaint or the appeal and the defendant or the respondent is usually not interested in such a dispute unless the question of payment of Court fees involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit or to entertain the appeal.
8. In Sri Rathnavar Maharaja v. Smt. Vimla : AIR 1961 SC 1299 the Supreme Court held that where proper Court fees has not been paid or not is an issue between the plaintiff and the State and the defendant has no right to question it in any manner. The said judgment of the Apex Court was considered and approved in Shamsher Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and Ors. : AIR 1973 SC 2384 observing as under:
The ratio of that decision was that no revision of a question of Court fee lay where no question of jurisdiction was involved.
9. The Supreme Court further approved the judgment of Kerala High Court in Basu v. Chakklmani : AIR 1962 Kerala 84 wherein it was pointed out that no revision would lie against the decision on the question of adequacy of Court fee at the instance of the defendant unless the Court Fee involves is also the question of jurisdiction of the Court.
10. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the reported decision of Kanhu Charan Mohanty v. Prafull Ch. Mishra : 1999 (II) OLR 199, wherein the Court took note of the reported decision of Smt. Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaja : AIR 1987 SC 2085, Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (Supra), and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar AIR 1979 SC 989.
11. The learned lower Court relied upon the observations made in Taradevi's (supra) case to the effect that the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the relief sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively under valued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same.
12. Similar view has been taken by the Court in Kedarnath Blswal and Ors. v. Budhanath Jena and Ors. : 106 (2008) CLT 595, wherein the Court has held:
On a close and composite reading of the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act along with the above noted case laws, one can comfortably infer that in a suit for declaration coupled with the consequential reliefs, the Plaintiff as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act can value the suit at his option, but such valuation cannot be arbitrary and must have some relation with the real market value of the property at the time of institution of the suit.
13. Thus, in view of the above, the legal position can be summarized that normally the valuation made by the plaintiff has to be accepted by the Court but where such valuation under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is demonstratively under valued and is arbitrary and unreasonable, the Court must direct the plaintiff to correct it. A revision against such orders regarding valuation lies only when it touches the jurisdiction of the Court.
14. Furthermore, the defendant has his right to raise objections on the valuation of the suit when it effects the jurisdiction of the Court and the matter is to be adjudicated upon under Section 12 of the Act, of 1870. The decision so taken by the trial Court shall be final. The defendant cannot raise the grievance against the said decision unless valuation suggested by him affects the jurisdiction of the Court. However, the Appellate or Revisional Court always can test the issue suo motu and make the deficiency good as the purpose of the Act is not only fixing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court but also collecting revenue for the State. The defendant does not have the right to agitate the issue further unless issue of change of jurisdiction is involved.
15. This being the settled principles of law, it is to be decided whether the learned lower Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested upon him. Section 12 of the Court Fees Act mandates that every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint is filed and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit.
16. In this case, when the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code stating that the valuation of the suit is arbitrary, unreasonable and demonstratively under valued, it was duty of the Court to examine without recording any evidence, the documents filed before it and the plaint, especially when the valuation suggested by the defendant may take the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). Considering such material on record, he should have given a finding whether such valuation was correct or incorrect. Depending upon his finding, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) should have to decided whether to proceed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code or otherwise. Having failed to do so, on the ground that it will require recording of evidence and full scale trial, the learned lower Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested upon him. Hence, it requires interference of the Revisional Court.
17. Before parting with the case, I feel it necessary to make a mention of the Orlssa Amendment Act to Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Orissa Amendment runs as follows :
(iv-a) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document securing money or other property having sush value.
According to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be :
If the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document executed;
If a part of the decree or other documents is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.
Explanation - In any case where a suit for the cancellation of a whole decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document securing money or other property having such value has to be instituted, but the substantial relief claimed is only in respect of a part of the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or the other document was executed, the value or the subject-matter of the suit shall be deemed to be such part of the amount or value of the property in respect of which the relief is sought; xxxx
18. This Sub-section has to be read into the Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. This provision was examined by this Court in Kandha Das v. Indurnati Devi AIR 1970 Orissa 215, wherein the Court held that Section 7(iv-a) shall be attracted only when the plaintiff seek to cancel the sale deed to which he is a party.
19. In case it is held that the suit comes under Section 7(iv)(d) then the plaintiff has the liberty to value his relief. On the contrary, if it falls under Section 7(iv-a), then the value of the document sought to be cancelled has to be the valuation of the suit.
In view of such provision, it is desirable that the learned lower .Court should examine whether the suit is filed for declaration with consequential relief or it is a suit in essence filed for cancellation of a document, namely; the Registered Sale Deed. It is incumbent upon him to decide whether the suit should be valued under Section 7(iv)(c) or Section (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act.
Accordingly, the Revision Application is allowed and the order dtd.12.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rourkela in C.S. No. 29 of 2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned lower Court with a direction to re-hear the parties on the question of valuation and to determine the same in terms of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act by examining the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. If the learned lower Court finds the suit should have been filed in a Court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff to be presented in Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
No costs.