Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 689 (RAJ)

Prem Raj v. Dr. Ram Raj

2000-05-29

N.P.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.By the impugned order the learned trial Court has directed the plaintiff-petitioner to amend the plaint as according to the learned trial Court it is not clear as to under what act the relief is claimed by the plaintiff, no basis has been given for valuation of the property and that till the suit is not one based on the ground of default no determination can be made under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, therefore, the plaintiff has been directed to make necessary amendment. 2. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the plaint, I find that in para 8 of the plaint the plaintiff has made a categoric averments to the effect that right from 1.3.1992 the rent has not been paid and default has been committed. It has further been pleaded that the rent is neither paid nor tendered and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to eviction. Thus the suit is clearly a suit based on the ground of default. So far valuation is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that valuation has been put on the basis of the plaintiff No. 1 being entitled to ⅓rd share, suffice it to say that it will be for the learned trial. Court to consider as to whether it is open to the plaintiff to pay Court fees on ⅓rd share or he is required to pay Court fees on the entire amount. If the Court finds that the Court fees in sufficient it may proceed with the trial of the suit while if the Court finds that it is deficit, the Court may proceed in accordance with law. But then direction cannot be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The provisions of Court Fees Act contain sufficient provisions even to call upon the plaintiff to disclose necessary particulars on the basis of which the valuation has been arrived at, but then even on that basis plaintiff cannot be directed to amend the plaint. 3. But then direction cannot be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The provisions of Court Fees Act contain sufficient provisions even to call upon the plaintiff to disclose necessary particulars on the basis of which the valuation has been arrived at, but then even on that basis plaintiff cannot be directed to amend the plaint. 3. Thus the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error and if allowed to stand would occasion substantial failure of justice in as much as the provisional determination of rent would not be made under section 13(3) and in case ultimately the Court finds the plaintiff to be defaulter, the complications would arise for the purpose of invoking Section 13(6) of the Act. In this view of the matter I am constrained to set aside the impugned order. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit expeditiously keeping in view the observations made above.Revision Accepted. *******