RAMAN KUMAR & OTHERS Vs. HIMACHALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apt objections in respect of the extant suit being defective for want of this Court possessing the apposite pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, also the suit being defective given its being grossly overvalued, for, the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, stood ventilated, both in preliminary objections embodied in the written statement, furnished to the plaint and also in OMP No. 387 of 2016. In OMP No. 387 of 2016, the learned senior counsel has also made a prayer that the plaint be ordered to be returned to the learned counsel of the plaintiff for its presentation before the court concerned, holding the apposite pecuniary jurisdiction to pronounce a verdict thereon. The learned counsel for the parties in corroboration of their respective pleaded contentions with regard to the suit being defective or not, its, being grossly overvalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction or its being properly valued, have, appended therewith certain valuation(s) and other documents. However, unless all the aforesaid documents are proven in accordance with law besides stand exhibited, no, reliance can be placed thereon by this Court, for accepting or rejecting the rival submissions addressed before this Court. The learned senior counsel for the defendants has made a submission before this Court, that an appropriate preliminary issue be struck in respect of the suit being grossly overvalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, dehors, this Court cumulatively therewith striking issues of fact. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant. The relevant verdict of this Court is borne in a judgment reported in SLC 2008 (3) 477, the relevant paragraph whereof occurring at Sr. No. 8, is reproduced hereunder:-

(2.) In both the aforesaid verdicts relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned court(s) concerned had struck all issues appertaining, to, both issues of law besides issues of fact, yet, despite the learned courts concerned cumulatively striking issues of fact and of law, they, during progress of trial of suit(s) rather proceeded to segregate besides sever issues of law from issues of fact where-after they permitted the parties concerned, to, adduce evidence(s) in discharge(s) thereof. The aforesaid concert of the civil Court(s) concerned was deprecated in the verdicts aforesaid pronounced by this Court. However, the distinctive trite fact existing in the instant suit, is comprised in this Court, not, yet cumulatively striking issues of fact and issues of law. Consequently, there would be also no occasion to untenably segregate one from the another nor would any occasion arise for the counsel for the contesting parties, being untenably enjoined to adduce evidence only in respect of issue of law whereas, the adduction of evidence upon issues appertaining to factual contentions standing untenably postponed.

(3.) Given the aforesaid therewith distinctive trite factum hereat rather given the aforesaid preliminary jurisdictional objections hence appertaining to beside embodying issue(s) of law, thereupon the apposite mandate(s) occurring in the aforesaid relevant paragraphs comprised in verdicts pronounced by this Court, constrain this Court to proceed to frame the hereinafter apposite issue(s) of law, issue(s) whereof singularly appertain to the jurisdiction of the Court, to try the suit for purported want of the suit being grossly overvalued or not, for the purpose(s) of both court fee and jurisdiction. Consequently, the address made before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that at this stage, this Court cumulatively strike all issues arising from all the contentious pleadings of the parties, is accepted.