DINESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. Ashish Agarwal, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri. U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "first petition") and Sri. U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner; and, Sri. Ashish Agarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. in Writ Petition No. 33268 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "second petition"). Both these matters have come up to this Court, on nomination, by the Hon'ble Senior Judge.

(2.) BEFORE coming to the merits of both the matters, a bird eye view of the background facts may be noticed.

(3.) THE summons were issued to defendants, pursuant whereto defendant No. 4 put in appearance before Trial Court, i.e., Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 14, Allahabad. He raised a preliminary objection about valuation of the suit and sufficiency of Court fee. The Trial Court adjudicated on the aforesaid preliminary issue vide order dated 13.8.2012 and held that valuation, for the purpose of Court fees, ought to have been done as per Section 7 (iv -A) of Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1870"), which has not been done, hence, it directed plaintiff to amend valuation clause as well as Court fee clause of the plaint, and, submit requisite Court fee.