Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Chand And Ors vs Satva Prakash And Ors ... on 23 August, 2023
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2023:RJ-JD:27082]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 560/2005
Amar Chand and Ors.
----Petitioners
Versus
Satva Prakash and Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 23/08/2023
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.7, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.23/2000 whereby the application under Order VII Rules 10 & 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') as preferred by the defendants has been rejected.
2. The application aforementioned was preferred by the defendants with the submission that for a suit for cancellation of sale deed, the Court fee has to be paid as per the market value as provided under the Act of 1961 and since the market value of the suit property was more than Rs.25,000/- the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said submission of the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:45:24 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27082] (2 of 3) [CR-560/2005] defendants was based on the judgment passed in Smt. Narbada Vs. Smt. Aashi, RLR 1986 Page 673.
3. The Court below proceeded on to decide the application on the premise that in terms of Section 38 of the Act of 1961, the valuation of the suit would be the amount as mentioned in the document which has been executed.
4. The present revision petition has been preferred on the ground that in terms of judgment of Smt. Narbada (supra), the suit ought to have been valued on the market price and not on the valuation on which the document was registered.
5. In the specific opinion of this Court, the present suit has been valued according to the valuation of the document in question i.e. the sale deed, therefore, the same is totally in consonance with Section 38 of the Act of 1961.
6. So far as the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Narbada is concerned, the same has been held not to be a good law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna & Anr., 2010 DNJ (SC) 451.
7. In view of the admitted position that the ratio as laid down in Smt. Narbada's case (supra) has been held not to be a good law, the sole ground as raised in the revision petition does not require any interference by this Court. The order impugned dated 25.09.2004 being totally in consonance with law also does not deserve any interference.
8. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:45:24 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:27082] (3 of 3) [CR-560/2005]
9. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit preferred way back in the year 1999 is still pending for adjudication.
10. It is expected from the Court below to expedite the proceedings.
(REKHA BORANA),J 5-Vij/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:45:24 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)