Court No. - 36 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 353 of 1997 Petitioner :- Smt. Prem Kumari Parmar Respondent :- Smt. Prakashwati And Ors Petitioner Counsel :- Madan G. Sharma,M.K. Rajvanshi,Mrs. S. Rathi,N.C. Rajvanshi Respondent Counsel :- Santosh Kumar,H.N. Singh Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
A restoration application to recall the order dated 20-7-2006 has been filed
whereby the revision was dismissed in default.
Cause shown is sufficient. The order dated 20-7-2006 dismissing the revision
in default is recalled. The revision is restored to its original number.
Heard Sri S.S. Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.G. Sharma,
Advocate for the applicant and Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, Advocate
holding brief of Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present revision is directed against the order dated 8-8-1997 whereby the
court below has decided issue no. 4 in favour of the plaintiff opposite parties.
The plaintiff opposite parties instituted original suit no. 957 of 1986- Smt.
Prakashwati and others Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Parihar and others. In that suit
issue no. 4 was struck with regard to valuation of the suit property. It was
valued at Rs. 2,27,500/- by the plaintiffs in the plaint. An objection having
been raised by the defendants, issue no. 4 was struck. The court below by the
order under revision has held that the valuation of the suit property is Rs.
10,25,000/- Being not satisfied by the said order, the defendant Smt. Prem
Kumari Parihar has filed the present revision.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below has erred in
law in holding that the valuation of the suit property is Rs. 10,25,000/- while
it should be more than that. The submission is that the court below has
wrongly discarded the report of Architect namely Sri S.C. Gupta (paper no.
95C) and has failed to consider the report of Amin in this regard. Learned
counsel for the opposite parties , on the other hand, submits that no
interference in the present revision is called for.
Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
The court below has rejected the report of Sri S.C. Gupta, Architect on the
ground that the said Architect has not been examined by the defendants. The
said document is a private document and unless and until it is proved in
accordance with law, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The said
approach of the court below is perfectly justified and calls for no interference.
So far as the report of Amin is concerned, its bare perusal would show that the
Amin has not given any basis in valuing the suit property at the rate of Rs.
2,500/- per sq. yard. The Court was taken through the report dated 25-3-1991
of the court Amin filed as Annexure-5 to the stay application. On a plain
reading of the said report, it would show that the said report is based on guess,
conjectures and surmises. No basis has been mentioned therein for arriving at
the market value of the suit property on the date of institution of the suit at the
rate of Rs. 2,500/- per sq. yard. Even if the said report was not taken into
consideration by the court below, on a careful consideration of the said report,
I find the order of the court below in this regard is not vitiated in as much as
the report itself is not relevant.
Besides the above, the present revision has been filed under Section 115 of
Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is pending before the court of IInd
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra. Even if the valuation of the
suit property is enhanced, it will continue to remain pending in the court of
Civil Judge (Senior Division). In other words, by enhancing the valuation of
the suit property, the jurisdiciton of the court is not going to be affected in any
manner. Therefore, no question of jurisdiction of court is involved.
It is well settled that question of payment of court fee is a matter in between
the plaintiffs and the State Government. This being so, I do not find any merit
in the revision. Filing of present revision appears to be nothing but an abuse
of process of court. The suit is of the year 1986 and 24 years are going to be
passed but due to dilatory tactics adopted by the defendants, it is pending till
date.
In view of the above, it is necessary to issue a direction to the trial court to
dispose of the suit expeditiously and, if necessary, by fixing short dates and
recording the evidence on day to day basis. The adjournment should be
granted to the defendants only under exceptional circumstances and that too
on payment of heavy costs which should not be less than Rs. 500/- per
adjournment. If the defendants continue to seek adjournments, it shall be open
to the trial court to enhance the costs of adjournments. The court shall make
an endeavour to hear and dispose of the suit preferably within a period of one
year.
The revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010
ALS