CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, JAMMU Vs. RAJ PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close down three windows, one iron grill and a Parnala opening towards the property of the plaintiff -petitioner herein, an objection was taken by the defendants that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction. Accordingly the following issues came to be framed: "Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court -fees and jurisdiction -

(2.) THE trial court came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly valued as in its opinion, the plaintiff was bound to value his suit both for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction separately in respect of each window, grill and parnala. The trial court based its conclusions on the interpretation which it placed upon Rule 7(5) of the Rules made by the High Court under Sections 3 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules). This revision petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the trial court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.