STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SITARAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Orissa, represented by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, assails the order passed by the Subordinate Judge. Baripada refusing to accept the valuation of the property involved in an application for probate.

(2.) THE background facts shorn of unnecessary details are as follows. - - One Sitaram Das filed an application for probate in respect of a Will which was numbered as Probate Case No. 4 of 1988 (subsequently re -numbered as O. S. No. 138 of 1938) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada. The present opp. parties 2 to 12 were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. It appears their in terms of Section 19 -H of the Court -fees Act, 1870 (in short 'the Act') notice of the application was given to the petitioner and the Collector. While the Collector was in seisin of the matter the defendants filed an application purported to be under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') and wanted to amend their written statement relating to the valuation of the property involved. The plaintiff filed objection to the maintainability of such an application. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to accept the prayer for amendment on the ground that the valuation is a matter between the plaintiff and State and therefore the defendants had no locus standi to challenge that aspect. He also observed that due notice was given to the Collector and there was no objection by the State and in that background it was not open to the defendants to agitate the question of valuation. We are presently not very such concerned with the view expressed about locus standi of the defendants. It appears, subsequently on 19 -11 -1990 the State filed memorandum relating to the valuation of the property involved. It was indicated that the State had valued the property at Rs. 3,25,000/ -. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to act on the motion made by the State by holding that the valuation aspect has already been decided by order dated 5 -8 -1990. This order has been assailed by the State acting through the Collector as indicated above.

(3.) IN the present case when the application of the defendants for amendment of their written statement was taken up the State was not heard in the matter. The observation of the learned Subordinate Judge that notice was duly served and there was no objection by the State seems to be a conclusion without keeping in view the provisions of Section 19 -H. No time limit is prescribed for the motion by the Collector relating to the under -estimation of valuation of the property involved. While dealing with the application for amendment filed by the defendants, the observation relating to non -objection by the State was made. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in rejecting the memorandum filed by the State relating to valuation of the property. The matter seems to have been disposed of without keeping in view the provisions of Section 19 -H and 19 -I. I, therefore, set aside, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and direct him to consider the valuation indicated by State in terms of Section 19 -H of the Act and dispose of the valuation matter in accordance with law. The Civil Revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs.