A R SINGH Vs. SAT PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order passed on 5.12.1994 dismissing application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . The basis for filing of the application was that plaintiff/respondent had earlier filed a suit No. 1592/88 titled as Satyaprakash vs. Sh. A.R. Singh claiming decree for declaration, damages and rendition of accounts in which he had declared the value of the property in dispute at Rs.1,25,000/- but in the suit in which application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed claiming a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.4.1986 and decree for permanent injunction he had not correctly valued the suit property. The application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that only averments made in the plaint ought to be looked into while considering the question that whether plaint has or has not been properly valued. At this stage allegation made in the written statement regarding valuation cannot be looked into. White dismissing the said application another objection of the defendant/petitioner was noticed that the suit was liable to be rejected as plaintiff has not disclosed trie facts to the court. Learned Civil Judge turned down the same observing that such an objection cannot be decided without recording evidence.

(2.) . After the civil revision was filed proceedings in the suit were stayed. Civil revision was later on admitted for hearing and as such trial of the suit till date stands stayed

(3.) . Having gone through the averments made in the plaint and the impugned order, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge holding that at this stage when application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed only averments in the plaint ought to be looked into to find out that whether the plaint has correctly been valued for court fee. On the basis of the averments valuation is in order. As such the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Needless to add that it is open for the defendant/ petitioner to raise the question of valuation of suit for purposes for court fee and jurisdiction in the written statement to be filed, if not already filed. In case such an objection is raised appropriate issue thereon will be framed and decided in accordance with law.