Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Singh Bhadoriya vs Jitendra Kumar Jain on 9 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11839
1 CR-344-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 344 of 2026
RAHUL SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
ORDER
1. This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 26/2/2026 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mehgaon, District Bhind, in Civil Suit No.104A/2025, by which the application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, as well as for declaration that the sale deed dated 26/6/2024 is null and void to the extent of share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had valued the suit at Rs. 95,000/- for the purposes of declaration of title. The applicant, who is the defendant and is purchaser from the co-sharer, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that the plaintiffs themselves raised an objection before the Collector of Stamp with regard to sufficiency of stamp duty on the sale deed, and accordingly the Collector of Stamps has held that the market value of the land is Rs.24,89,523/-. Therefore, it was submitted that the valuation done by Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 10-04-2026 06:58:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11839 2 CR-344-2026 the plaintiff for the purposes of declaration of title is on a lower side. Thus, primarily the contention was that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.
3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by holding that the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed and the property is also in a dilapidated condition. The findings with regard to the valuation cannot be given at this stage, and it can be done only after appreciation of facts.
4. Counsel for applicant has filed a copy of order dated 10/7/2024 passed by Collector of Stamp, District Bhind, in Case No. 59/B-103/2024- 25/Stamp Act under Section 48(b).
5. From this document, counsel for applicant could not point out anything to indicate that objection with regard to the sufficiency of stamp duty was raised by the plaintiffs.
6. Furthermore, the trial Court has held that the question of market value of the property in dispute is a disputed question of fact which can be adjudicated only after recording of evidence.
7. Above all, order dated 10/7/2024 is not mentioned in the plaint.
8. It is well-established principle of law that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court cannot look into any pleading other than the plaint pleadings and the documents filed along with the plaint.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the trial Court by rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 10-04-2026 06:58:31 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11839 3 CR-344-2026
10. The civil revision fails is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 10-04-2026 06:58:31 PM