Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1524 (RAJ)

Jhanjan Koli v. Dropati Jatav

2018-07-19

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. The matter comes up on an application under Section 151 CPC for dispensing with service of respondent No. 4 for the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. 2. Service upon the respondent No. 4 is dispensed with. 3. Another application, at the instance of petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC prays for taking the legal representatives of petitioner No. 5-Ram Kishan now deceased on record. For the reasons stated in the application it is allowed. LRs of petitioner no. 5-now deceased, taken on record as 5/1 to 5/4. Amended cause title already filed, is also taken on record. 4. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Under challenge by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter ‘defendants’) in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 9.10.2014 whereby the two applications were decided by the Trial Court; the first under Section 10, 11(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act of 1961’) at the instance of the defendants which was dismissed and the other application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC at the instance of the respondents-plaintiffs (hereafter ‘plaintiffs’) which was allowed. 6. Heard the counsel for the defendants and the plaintiffs. Perused the impugned order dated 9.10.2014. 7. For one, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two disparate orders wholly unrelated, is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of cause of action. 8. Be as it may, even otherwise there is no force in the petition. The trial court vide its impugned order dated 9.10.2014 has dismissed the defendant’s application filed under Section 10, 11(2) of the Act of 1961 on the ground that the court fee in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 6.11.1992 was payable only on the value of the sale deed dated 6.11.1992. This view of the trial court is fully in consonance with law as would be evident from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satheedevi v. Prasanna reported in [(2010) DNJ (SC) 451]. 9. This view of the trial court is fully in consonance with law as would be evident from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satheedevi v. Prasanna reported in [(2010) DNJ (SC) 451]. 9. The Trial Court while allowing the plaintiffs’ application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC vide order dated 9.10.2014, has held that the sale deed dated 6.11.1992 of which the defendants were beneficiaries as vendee necessarily had to be in possession as its cancellation was sought in the plaintiffs’ suit. They were thus under an obligation to file it before the Trial Court as prayed for by the plaintiffs. 10. Nothing illegal or capricious in the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in the manner aforesaid on the two applications aforesaid can be found. 11. There is no force in the petition. Dismissed. Thus the interim order dated 13.11.2014 stands vacated.