HARENDRA PRASAD Vs. PARSHOTTAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is appellant against an order allowing review.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for respondents that appeal is not maintainable. This has no merit in view of Order 43, Rule 1 ((W), C.P.C. added by amendment Code of Civil Procedure by Act 104 of 1976. Appeal is maintainable.

(3.) Coming to merits of the appeal, it, is found that valuation of the suit is the main dispute. Suit is for partition, originally respondent No.1 filed the suit. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 was transposed as plaintiff No.2 to continue the suit along with plaintiff No.1. Both plaintiffs were called upon to pay court fee on the suit as valued by them. On objection of appellant that valuation of suit is more than ten lakhs. Trial court held that suit is undervalued as the building has not been properly valued. Plaintiffs filed an application for review of the order. One of the grounds for review was that in civil revision the valuation of the suit was accepted by High Court which has become final. Trial court has accepted the same and reviewed its earlier order. This is grievance of appellant.