KISHORI LAL Vs. ISHWAR DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are lour regular second appeals in which a common question of law arises which relates to their maintainability before the High Court under para 32(1)(b) of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the order of 1948). In two of the second appeals, 1968 R.S.A. 152 and, 1969 U.S.A. 45 , the decree of the Subordinate judge has been affirmed by the District Court and as such the question is to be determined with reference to Sub -clause (ii) of para 32(1)(b). In the other two second appeals, 1968 R.S.A. 104 and, 1969 R.S.A. 8 , the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been varied or reversed by the District Court and as such the said question is to be determined with reference to Sub -clause (1) of para 32(1)(b). While these four regular second appeals were set down for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, the objection regarding their maintainability was taken by the Respondents and as the question involved was of general importance the learned single Judge made the following reference order which he referred to a larger Bench:

(2.) In all the four suits the valuation that has been put in the plaint is below the prescribed pecuniary limit contained in Sub -clauses (i) and (ii) and, therefore, affidavits have been given by the appellants that the value of the suit is really more and crosses the pecuniary limit prescribed under the two Sub -clauses. The vexed question that has been posed for our decision is, as to whether the value of the suit can be re -assessed for purpose of second appeal under para 32(1)(b) so as to bring it within the pecuniary limit prescribed therein. The question essentially relates to the interpretation of the words "value of the suit" used in para 32(1)(b) of the Order of 1948. In short, it is to be decided, as to whether the value of the suit would be the value put in the plaint while the original jurisdiction was exercised, or that value could be enhanced by giving evidence by affidavit etc. so as to bring it within the prescribed limit to maintain second appeal before the High Court under para 32(1)(b) of the Order of 1948.

(3.) The said para 32(1)(b) may now be set out and it is in the following terms: