JUDGMENT
Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Swati Agarwal learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. An original suit was instituted by the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant/respondents and also restraining them from changing the nature of the property in the court of 8th Additional Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) Mohammadabad. The defendant/respondents also instituted a Suit No. 902 of 1994 in the same court. Vide order dated 20.5.2000, the Court decided a preliminary issue regarding valuation of the suit. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint and also to deposit excess court fee as per valuation of the suit. The application was remitted to the court concerned having pecuniary jurisdiction but the court neither called for a report nor allowed the amendment application. As a consequence, valuation remained as before, which was at the time of filing of the suit. This order was passed on 31.5.2000, which was challenged in revision before the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, I, Ghazipur. The revisional court dismissed the revision in absence of the counsel appearing for the petitioner on 7.10.2003. An application was filed to set aside the ex parte order dated 7.10.2003, passed in Civil Revision No. 111 of 2000. The revision was dismissed on 12.7.2005 holding that counsel for the petitioner could not show that he was prevented to appear for want of sufficient cause when the appeal was called for hearing. This order is under challenge. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Jwala Prasad v. Ayodhya Prasad , where it was held that the revision can be restored to its original number, if it is found that he was not given an opportunity of being heard. The revisional court did not agree on account of reason that facts of the case, which were cited by the petitioner/revisionist was altogether different than facts of the present case. The said decision has again been cited by Mrs. Swati Agwaral, advocate, appearing for the petitioner and reliance has been placed on findings of the Apex Court where the Apex Court had allowed the appeal and directed the revisional court to decide it afresh on merits. For ready perusal, findings of the Apex Court are quoted below :
…In view of the fact that the order passed by the Second Additional District Judge on 11th April, 1977, clearly shows that neither the appellant nor his advocate was present at the time when the revision application was called out for hearing and dismissed and that the application for restoration of the revision application made by the appellant was taken up by the second Additional District Judge and was dismissed…. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated 30th July, 1979, as also the orders of the second Additional District Judge dated 24th September, 1977 and 11th April, 1977 and restore the revision application to its original file and direct that the revision application he heard and disposed of by the District Judge on merits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
3. In view of the aforesaid Ruling, I am of the view that it is useless to linger proceedings at the initial stage. The suit was filed in the year 1993-94 but on the question of valuation as well as payment of the court fee, the matter is lingering since last more than ten years. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.7.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, I, Ghazipur as well as orders dated 7.10.2003 and 31.5.2000 are set aside.
4. The revisional court is directed to pass appropriate orders on amendment application and also the application for payment of court fee and proceed with the suit. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
