Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 283 (ALL)

Shankar Lal Sharma v. Babulal

2014-01-22

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. In the said suit an issue regarding valuation was framed and it has been decided by the order dated 12.3.2013 and the petitioner has been asked to re-value the suit and to pay the court fees accordingly. 3. Petitioner preferred a revision against the aforesaid order but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2013. 4. The aforesaid orders have been assailed by the petitioner by means of this writ petition. 5. The revision was filed against the order dated 12.3.2013 regarding issue on valuation of the suit. 6. The Apex court in AIR 1961 SC 1299 Sri Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla has ruled that no revision lies on the question of valuation and court fees where jurisdiction of the court is not involved. The aforesaid decision has been followed in AIR 1973 SC 2384 Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prasad and others. Admittedly, the jurisdiction of the court is not the subject matter. Therefore, in view of the above decisions the order dated 12.3.2013 is not revisable and as such the revisional court has rightly not interfered with the same. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has valued the suit in accordance with the court fees Act and that there is no finding by any of the authorities that the valuation given by the petitioner is incorrect. 8. The decision on the valuation of the suit and payment of court fees is basically an interlocutory order. Parties to the suit can not be permitted to challenge the findings on each and every issue independently and separately unless the issues touches the jurisdiction of the court. Any adverse decision on any issue decided in a suit is always amenable to attack after the decision of the suit in appeal. 9. The above decision regarding valuation of the suit and payment of court fees is not even appellable under Section 104 CPC read with Order 43 Rule 1-A CPC. Therefore, in view of Rule 1-A of Order 43 CPC, the decision on the said issue can be challenged by the aggrieved party after the decision of the suit either by way of appeal or by cross objection, as the case may be. 10. Therefore, in view of Rule 1-A of Order 43 CPC, the decision on the said issue can be challenged by the aggrieved party after the decision of the suit either by way of appeal or by cross objection, as the case may be. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not consider it to be a fit case for interference at this interlocutory stage. 11. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would amend the valuation of the suit and pay the requisite court fees within a period of one month. 12. He may do so and in case valuation is amended and the court fees is paid, the court below will proceed and decide the interim injunction application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 13. The petition is dismissed.