Bombay High Court
ANANDRAO LAHU PATIL AND ANR.versusSHIVSAGAR RAMAYYA SWAMI
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the application and that rejection under Order VII Rule 11(b)/(c) is not automatic, thus dismissing the revision.
Summary
The plaintiff, Shivsagar Ramayya Swami, filed a suit seeking declaration, cancellation of a sale deed dated 21‑10‑2021 and a permanent injunction. The defendants, Anandrao Lahu Patil and others, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC alleging that the plaintiff had paid insufficient court fee because the fee was calculated on the consideration amount rather than the full property valuation. The trial court rejected the defendants' application and allowed the suit to proceed. On revision, the High Court examined the principles governing Order VII Rule 11, emphasizing that a plaint cannot be summarily rejected for undervaluation or deficit fee without first directing the plaintiff to rectify the deficiency. The Court held that the trial court had correctly applied this procedure and found no error in its order. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground of non‑payment of sufficient court fee.
- Whether a plaint may be rejected outright for undervaluation or deficit court fee without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the deficiency.
- Whether the court fee for the suit should be based on the consideration amount of the sale deed or on the valuation of the entire property.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act — s. 6(4)(ha)
Subjects
- court fee
- Order VII Rule 11
- Civil Procedure Code
- revision
- sale deed
- declaration
- injunction
- valuation
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act
Judgment
943-CRA-55-2026(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2026
Anandrao Lahu Patil And Anr.
VERSUS
Shivsagar Ramayya Swami
Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. Dhananjay Ananda Utture, Mr. Shantanu C. Gurav a/w Mr.
Darshan R. Swami Advocate for Respondents
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026.
P. C. :
1. This Revision Application raises an exception to the order
dated 18/03/2025 below Exhibit 13 rendered by 2 nd Civil Judge
Senior Division, Kolhapur in Special Civil Suit No. 386/2023.
2. The Applicants are the original Defendants while the
Respondent is the original Plaintiff. (Hereinafter the parties shall be
IRESH
MASHAL
referred to by their original status in the Suit).
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL 3. The Plaintiff instituted the Suit seeking declaration and
Date:
2026.05.04
15:30:59
+0530
cancellation of the the sale deed dated 21/10/2021 in relation to
the suit property alongwith further relief of permanent injunction.
4. In the interregnum, the Defendants presented an Application
Iresh 1 of 6
943-CRA-55-2026(C).doc
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Considering the the consideration amount, Defendants raised the
issue of non payment of sufficient Court fee and prayed to reject the
Plaint.
5. The Trial Court after considering the submissions of litigating
sides, rendered the order under challenge rejecting the Application
of the Defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants are
before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicants-original Defendants
submits that the order under challenge is unsustainable in law. The
Court fee paid by the Plaintiff is paid on the basis of the
consideration amount of the sale deed and not on the valuation of
the entire property. As such, the Plaintiff has paid deficit Court fee
as per the Section 6(4)(ha) of The Maharashtra Court Fees Act.
Thus, the Trial Court has erred while passing the order under
challenge.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-original Plaintiff has
supported the order under challenge and prayed to reject the
Application.
Iresh 2 of 6
943-CRA-55-2026(C).doc
8. Having heard the submissions from the litigating sides and
upon perusal of record, particularly the Plaint indicates that the
Plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration in relation to the sale
deed in question and not against the property referred to the sale
deed. Thus, the Plaint is primarily in relation to the sale deed and
reliefs thereupon.
9. The principles governing the exercise of power under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code can be culled out as follows:
(i) The object underlying Order VII Rule 11 is to ensure that a
litigation which is frivolous or is bound to fail does not occupy
the judicial time.
(ii) The test for exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 is
whether the averments made in the plaint are taken in
entirety, in convention with documents relied upon, would
result in a decree being passed. The Court must examine the
averments in the plaint in conjunction with the documents
relied upon, and the pleas taken in the written statement
would be wholly irrelevant. If any of the grounds specified in
clauses (a) to (e) are made out, the court is bound to reject
Iresh 3 of 6
943-CRA-55-2026(C).doc
the plaint.
(iii) Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is essentially a
question of fact, to be determined on a holistic reading of the
plaint itself. It is impermissible to isolate a sentence or a
passage and to read it out of context.
(iv) If the averments made in the plaint prima facie show the
cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
whether averments are correct.
(v) The exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is
mandatory in nature and the court must ascertain whether the
plaint discloses a real cause of action or something merely
illusory.
(vi) The power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code may be
exercised at any stage of the suit.
10. Insofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of
improper valuation and non-payment of appropriate court fee is
concerned, a plain and conjoint reading of clauses (b) and (c) of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the
Iresh 4 of 6
943-CRA-55-2026(C).doc
power to reject a plaint on the grounds enumerated therein, is not
to be exercised in the first instance, without affording an
opportunity to the plaintiff. The statutory scheme contemplates a
two-step process. Firstly, the Court must form an opinion that the
relief claimed is undervalued or that the court fee paid is
insufficient. Secondly, upon such determination, the Court is
obligated to require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and/or
supply the requisite court fee within a time to be fixed by it. It is
only upon failure of the plaintiff to comply with such direction
within the stipulated time, that the consequences of rejection of the
plaint can ensue. Thus, the rejection of a plaint under Order VII
Rule 11(b) or (c) is not automatic upon a finding of undervaluation
or deficit court fee; rather, it is conditional upon non-compliance
with the opportunity so granted by the Court.
11. Considering the sale deed and the consideration amount as
such, the Court fee is valued and paid accordingly by the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, the sale deed, its legality and proprietary is the subject
matter of the Suit and the reliefs are sought accordingly.
12. Thus, the above aspects are considered by the learned trial
Iresh 5 of 6
943-CRA-55-2026(C).doc
Court in its proper perspective. As such, in view of the aforesaid
findings, no error is noted in the order under challenge.
13. Resultantly, the Revision Application stands dismissed. No
order as to costs.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
Iresh 6 of 6
Checking your session…