2010 PLP 1430 (CLC)

ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.

Sajjad Ali son of Khan Zareen petitioner who is defendant No.18 in a suit titled "Aurangzeb Khan and another v. District Registrar/DRO, Peshawar and 19 others" for declaration and perpetual injunction has through this revision petition questioned the orders dated 8-4-2010 and 1-6-2010 passed respectively by Civil Judge, Peshawar and Additional District Judge-VI, Peshawar turning down the request made by defendants Nos.5, 7 to 16, and 18 to 20 through their application dated 23-2-2010 to reject/dismiss the plaint for not properly valuing the disputed property and non-fixation of court fee on the plaint.

2. Facts precisely stated are that in the suit aforestated, without filing written statement applicants-defendants above moved an application before the trial Court stating that since plaintiffs-respondents have not properly valued the suit property for jurisdictional value and have also not affixed court-fee on the plaint, thus the plaint be returned/rejected-dismissed. This application purports to have been filed under Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C.

3. The request so made did not find favour with the court seized of the trial who dismissed the application on 8-4-2010 and directed The defendants to file their written Statement on 27-4-2010.

4. The order was challenged only by petitioner-defendant No.18 through Civil Appeal No.56/14 of 2010, where he impleaded only plaintiffs-respondents and none out of the other nineteen defendants, not even as pro forma respondents.

5. Learned Additional District Judge-VI, Peshawar vide judgment dated 1-6-2010 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with costs of Rs.1000.

6. While dismissing the appeal, the learned appellate court referred to the provisions of section 7 (iv) (c), Court Fees Act, 1870 and held that in a suit for declaration and consequential relief court fee shall be affixed according to the amount at which relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

7. In this revision petition too, petitioner-defendant No.18 has impleaded the plaintiffs as respondents and not the others (defendants Nos.1 to 17, 19 & 20) without disclosing any reason for doing so. This should have been sufficient cause to dismiss this petition in limine, however, in the interest of justice, while avoiding do so I proceed to dispose it of on merits.

8. Arguments heard. Record perused.

9. Return of the plaint is ordered under Order VII Rule 10,/CPC only when it is instituted in a forum having no jurisdiction in the matter. Instant is apparently not a case of this nature, thus reference to Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C. in the application is misconceived.

10. Rejection of plaint is ordered under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. and clause (b) thereof deals with a situation like the one alleged in the instant case, which reads as under: Rejection of Plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a)

(b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiffs, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court fails to do so". Section 149, C.P.C. also deals with such a situation authorizing the court to pass such order allowing the person, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee.

11. Instant is a case, where neither under section 149, nor under clause 1 (b) Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. the trial Court has directed the plaintiffs-respondents to affix court fee on the plaint and thus question of invoking the penal clause of Order VII ibid does not arise at all.

12. The two impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below, neither being illegal, nor without jurisdiction are accordingly maintained. Resultantly, revision petition is dismissed in limine. A.R.K./232/P Petition dismissed.