Gujarat High Court
Hemendra Rasiklal Shah & vs Biren Arvindbhai Shah & 4 on 13 July, 2017
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/13049/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13049 of 2017
==========================================================
HEMENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
BIREN ARVINDBHAI SHAH & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MN MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 13/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.2278 of 2016, filed by the respondents have come with the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.4.2017 passed by learned Chamber Judge, Court No.25, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below application Exh.20 whereby learned Judge has rejected such application with cost of Rs.3,000/-. The application at Exh.20 was preferred under Order-VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code') seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is undervalued as the valuation for the purpose of the relief asked for in the suit is of Rs.38 lacs and the respondents should be ordered to pay court fees on such valuation and if they fail to pay the court fees on the suit valuation, order be made for rejection of their suit with injunction application.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioners submitted that since in the suit, the respondents have asked for ancillary relief with main relief of permanent injunction, the suit should have been valued at Rs.38 lacs instead of Rs.300/- only. Mr. Mehta submitted that when the suit is undervalued, the court fees paid by the respondents Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Jul 14 00:02:34 IST 2017 C/SCA/13049/2017 ORDER should be said to be deficit court fees or insufficient court fees and therefore, the suit as also the injunction application both are required to be rejected in exercise of the powers under Order-VII Rule 11(b) of the Code.
3. The Court having heard learned advocate Mr. Mehta and having perused the copy of the plaint as also the impugned order finds that the respondents have prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from making any construction of permanent nature or from making any change in the structural design or alteration in the suit premises or creating any third party interest by executing registered sale deed in favour of third party or in any other manner and also restraining the petitioners from handing over the possession of the suit premises to anybody on the premise that the respondents are owners and in possession of the suit premises. The Court finds that as observed by learned Judge in the impugned order, considering the nature of relief prayed, the court fees paid by the respondents could be said to be sufficient court fees. Irrespective of such aspect of the matter, Order VII Rule 11(b) provides that when relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct valuation, within time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do that, the plaint could be rejected. Such is not the case here and therefore, the petitioners could not be said to have made out the ground for rejection of the plaint under Order-7 Rule 11(b) of the Code. The Court, therefore, does not find that any interference is required in the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore, rejected.
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Jul 14 00:02:34 IST 2017