JIWANDASS Vs. ANOOP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. He valued the suit property at Rs. 25,000.00 and Trial Court found it undervalued. The Court assessed the valuation at Rs. 8.00 lakhs and holding it had no jurisdiction to try it rejected the "Suit".

(2.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition to assail the order. It is submitted that even if it was assumed that Trial Court had correctly determined the valuation but once it had found that it was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, it ought to have returned the plaint under Order 7 and Rule 10 or rejected it after affording an Opportunity to plaintiff to pay the deficient Court-fee. Learned Counsel for respondent, Mr. Malik, however, challenged the maintainability of the revision petition itself. He submitted that after rejecting the suit Trial Court had passed a decree which was appealable and no revision could lie against such decree.

(3.) The submission of Mr. Malik, though, attractive sounds highly technical to me because what he calls a decree is based on an order which is neither here not there. The order is patently illegal and represents an error apparent on the face of record. As appears from the terms of order. Trial Court had strangely ousted its jurisdiction first and then "rejected" /dismissed the suit. The order impugned was repugnant to established legal position and norms and was void and non est on which no decree could be based. Such order which occassioned failure of justice was consequently revisable and so was any follow-up decree passed on it.