GURMEET SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN KOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.7.1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu, whereby he has decided both the issues against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent no. 2.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that respondent no. 2 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent no. 1 under the Right of Prior Purchase Act 1993 (1936 A.D.) (hereinafter called as the Act), In respect of a single storied house comprising of two rooms, store, one stair case and an open compound situated at Mohalla Pratap Garh, Jommu. Whereas the plaintiff/respondent no. 2 claimed in the suit the right of prior purchase, the petitioner who was the vendee of the suit properly alongwith respondent no.1 who was its Vendor, contested this right. The trial court framed as many as five issues for trial vide its order dated 7.5.1982 but out of these, first two issues were treated as preliminary issues and the parties were directed to lead evidence thereon. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has decided these two issues in favour of respondent no. 2 and against the petitioner and respondent no. 1. These two issues are reproduced as under:-

(3.) Whereas Mr. Lehar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. has not advanced any arguments, in support of or agains the impugned order, Mr. K.R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, has strongly supported the impugned order. By Way ,of preliminary objections, however, he has urged, that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the clear provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code en the question decided in the impugned order, viz, the payment of the court fees by the plaintiff in a pending suit. In support of his aforesaid contention he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the casa of Sri Rathna Varma Raja vs. Smt. Vimia, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299.