HARIHAR MISRA Vs. NARHARI SETTI SITARAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF valued Title Suit No. 57 of 1962 at Rs. 1000/ -. Defendants filed written statements alleging that the value of the suit property was Rs. 10,000/ -. On 18-91963 defendants filed two applications one for appointment of a Commissioner for making the valuation of the suit property and another for taking up the valuation question and court-fee matter as a preliminary issue. The case had been transferred to the learned Subordinate Judge, who appointed an Overseer commissioner to estimate the market value of the suit site and the superstructures standing on it. The Commissioner submitted his report on 4-111963. The suit had been adjourned to 8-11-1963 for filing objections. On the latter date, no objections were filed. Plaintiff was absent. Advocate for the defendants had no objection to the report of the Commissioner which was accepted. The learned Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to take steps for amendment of the plaint and to pay the deficit court-fee in light of the valuation, given by the Commissioner. On 14-11-1963 advocate for the plaintiff filed an application. for recalling the order dated 8-11-1963. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this application holding that he had no power to review the order of his predecessor under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, The civil revision has been filed against this order.

(2.) IN course of hearing of the civil revision, a question arose whether the civil revision was against the order dated 23-12-1963 or the order dated 8-11-1963. The revision against the latter order was barred by limitation by a few days. I ignored the limitation and allowed the parties to argue the revision as it is was against the order dated 8-11-1963. The question for consideration is whether this order was correctly passed.

(3.) TO appreciate the point it need be stated that the effect of the order dated 811-1963 is that the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the Commissioner's report as determinative of the question as to valuation of the suit. He did not allow any opportunity to the parties, to lead evidence de hors the Commissioner's, report. Mr. Misra challenges the correctness of this view.