Zahoor Ahmed vs Rakhi Gupta and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.

Cav. No. 67/2012

Respondent has put in appearance. Caveat has become infructuous. Dismissed.

C.R.P. 10/2012 and CM No. 1080-1082/2012

The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 12.12.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') had been dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is only restricted to the fact that although admittedly the plaintiff in terms of the averments made in the plaint was claiming 1/ 7th share in the suit property, her right to pay the Court fee was admittedly on her l/7th share only but for the purposes of jurisdiction, the valuation of the entire suit property had to be taken and not the valuation of her share alone and the Trial Court holding otherwise has committed an illegality.

Reliance by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 44 Ramesh Chand Bhardwaja Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma, as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court in CS(OS)No. 2546/2010 titled as Anu v. Suresh Verma delivered on 12.07.2011. There is no doubt that valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction has to be the value of the whole of the property which is the subject matter of partition whereas the valuation for the purposes of Court fee would be such as provided under the Court Fee Act Since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and she is claiming l/7th share in the suit property by virtue of said partition admittedly, she has to pay Court fee for her share in the suit property and valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction has to be the entire value of the suit property which is more than Rs. 60 lacs and as such in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff; plaint be returned to be filed in the Court of competent authority by following the procedure of the Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code. With these directions, petition is disposed of.