Bombay High Court

SHAIKH SHAFFIK SHAIKH ABDUL RAZAK AND ORSversusMOHD ABDUL AHAD ABDUL BASIT AND ORS

Disposal: Rejected at Admission stage

Holding

The revision court held that, in the absence of a failure to properly value the claim or pay the court fees, the plaint cannot be rejected under Rule 11(b) of Order VI CPC, and thus the trial court's decision to dismiss the application for rejection was correct.

Summary

The defendants filed a revision seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not properly valued and the appropriate court fees were not paid, contending that the property was non‑agricultural (N.A.) land with a residential construction and a tin shed. The respondents argued that the N.A. use had not been commenced within the one‑year period prescribed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non‑Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969, and therefore the conditional order was invalid. The trial court examined the statutory requirement that N.A. use must begin within a year of the Collector's order and noted the lack of clear evidence regarding the original use, but held that under Rule 11(b) of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code a plaint cannot be rejected unless there is a failure to value the claim properly or to pay the court fees. Consequently, the trial court declined to reject the plaint and dismissed the application for rejection. On revision, the High Court affirmed that the trial court correctly applied Rule 11(b) and found no error in its reasoning. The revision application was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the plaint can be rejected on the basis of alleged improper valuation and non‑payment of court fees when the status of the land as non‑agricultural is in dispute.
Whether the one‑year commencement requirement under Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non‑Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969, affects the court's power to reject the plaint.
Whether Rule 11(b) of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code bars rejection of a plaint absent a failure to value the claim or pay the court fees.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 11(b)
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non-Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969 — s. 4(c)

Subjects

non-agricultural land
valuation of plaint
court fees
rejection of plaint
Civil Procedure Code
Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules
civil revision

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37602

cra157.22
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

956 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2022

Shaikh Shaffik Shaikh Abdul Razak And Ors
VERSUS
Mohd Abdul Ahad Abdul Basit And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Dharurkar Chaitanya V
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa
…..

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. This revision is preferred against the order dated

12.02.2022, passed by the learned 7 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Beed below Exh.48 in Regular Civil Suit No. 161 of 2021.

The application Exh.48 was filed by the defendants, the present

applicants for rejection of plaint, as it was not properly valued and

proper court fees was not paid. It is contented that the property is

N.A. property and construction was carried out for resident purpose.

There is a tin shed in the suit property. It was therefore submitted to

reject the plaint.

2. The respondents contended that though there was N.A.

order, the N.A. use was not started within a year and therefore,

conditional order was not passed as it is not N.A. land. It is therefore,
cra157.22
-2-

prayed to reject the application.

3. The learned trial court in para 12 and 13 observed as

under:-

“12. According to the Maharashtra Land Revenue
(Conversion of use of land and nonagricultural assessment
Rules, 1969) 4(c) the applicant shall commence the non
agricultural use applied for within one year from the date of
the order made by the Collector in that behalf; falling
which, unless the said period is extended by the Collector
from time to time, the permission granted shall be deemed
to have lapsed;

13. According to the above mentioned provision the
specific use of land as non-agricultural must be
commenced within one year from date of order of
Collector. In the case in hand defendants have not made
clear on record that the original owner of namely
Gangaram Mali was using suit property for the purpose
mentioned in permission. Therefore, at this stage record is
not clear regarding whether suit property is non agricultural
land or not. However the 8A extract shows that property
no.1442 is given to the house in suit property bearing
survey no. 335. Admittedly there is a house in the suit
property and plaintiff has not assessed its value for
necessary court fees at the time of valuation of suit.
Plaintiffs have only paid court fees as per 7/12 Extract of
suit property. So, at the most, necessary issues about
valuation of the suit and payment of Court fees can be
framed. But, in my view, the plaint cannot be rejected in
cra157.22
-3-

view of Order VII, Rule 11 (b) of Civil Code, unless plaintiff
fails to value the claim properly or he fails to pay the
ordered Court fees. Therefore, in my view, Clause (b) of
Rule 11 of Order VI of Civil Code is inactive in the present
circumstances of the case. If would not be just and proper
to rejection the plaint on claimed ground at this stage.
Hence, the upcoming order is passed.”

4. On perusal of the impugned order, particularly the

conclusion drawn by the learned trial court, it is crystal clear that as

per Rule 11-B of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, unless the plaintiff

fails to value the plaint properly or fails to pay the court fees properly,

the plaint cannot be rejected. Unless that course is followed, the

application for rejection of the plaint cannot be filed and allowed.

5. In view of the above, the reasons and findings of the

learned trial court are legal and correct and no interference is

warranted. The application therefore, deserves to be rejected. The

civil revision application is accordingly, rejected.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…