(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI)
1. Appellant-
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 31.8.2000 passed by learned Judge of Small Cause Court No.12, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal being MVA No.6289 of 1995 preferred by the respondent herein and directed to fix GRV for the premise in question at Rs.32,130/- for the assessment year 1994-95.
2. Respondent had preferred above-referred MVA No.6289 of 1995, challenging GRV fix by the Corporation at Rs.2,68,826/- for the assessment year 1994-95. Before the Small Cause Court, respondent relied on the valuer's report produced at mark 14/6. Relying upon the valuation report, learned Judge fixed GRV at 7% of the cost of construction, as stated in the valuation report, which came to Rs.32,130/-.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly argued that learned Judge while reducing GRV fixed by the Corporation has relied on evidence which was not admissible in law. She has contended that the respondent, who was appellant before the learned Small Cause Court, was required to prove valuation report and since the contents of the valuation report were not proved by the respondent, learned Judge could not have read the valuation report in evidence. She further submitted that except the report, which was not at all exhibited, there was no other evidence produced by the respondent to prove the cost of construction as claimed by the respondent in the appeal. She has relied on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Rohitbhai Rasiklal Shah, reported in 2005 JX (Guj.) 551. She has pointed out that in the above-said case, similar was the issue and this Court has held that when a particular document is sought to be adduced in evidence, then person, who has prepared document, i.e. scribe or witness to the document is required to be examined. When a document sought to be relied on is a private document prepared by private valuer, then contents of such document are required to be proved in accordance with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. She, therefore, submitted that as clearly held by this Court that valuation report, which is not proved, cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing GRV. Learned Judge has committed grave error in reducing GRV fixed by the Corporation.
4. As against the above-said arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate Shri I.M. Pandya for the respondent has contended that learned Judge has not committed any error in reducing GRV fixed by the Corporation. Learned advocate submitted that learned Judge has considered two earlier judgments of this Court and has reached to his conclusion for reducing GRV. He, however, could not site any other judgment, taking contrary view to the judgment cited by learned advocate for the appellant. He has fairly stated that the valuation report relied upon by the respondent was only marked and not exhibited.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the Corporation is required to be allowed, on the short ground that the learned Judge could not have relied on the valuation report which was not admissible in evidence. We find that the only ground for reduction of GRV fixed by the Corporation is the basis of valuation report produced on record by the respondent. Except the valuation report, mark 14/6, there is no other evidence to prove the value of the property arrived at by learned Judge. The valuation report is not proved and therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence. We, therefore, find that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra) relied on by the learned advocate for the appellant and we hold that the learned Judge has committed grave error in relying upon the valuation report which was not admissible to be considered as evidence. Learned Judge, therefore, could not have relied on such valuation report and could not have fixed the GRV on the basis of the cost of construction revealed from the valuation report. The judgment and order passed by learned Judge cannot stand scrutiny of law and cannot be allowed to sustain.
6. At this stage, learned advocate Shri Pandya requests that the respondent be given opportunity to prove the valuation report on record. He stated that when the valuation report was produced on record, there was no objection taken by the appellant Corporation. He, therefore, requests that if opportunity is given to the respondent to prove the valuation report, the appellant Corporation will not be put to any prejudice. He in fact, relied on final order passed by the Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra) and submitted that in the said case also, when judgment and order passed by the Small Cause Court was set aside, on the similar ground, the matter was remitted back to the Small Cause Court for the purpose of permitting the respondent therein to adduce evidence to prove the document in question in the said case. Learned advocate for the appellant, however, objected to grant of any such opportunity to the respondent at this stage, on the ground that more than 10 years have already passed and now, the respondent will not be permitted to fill in lacuna because the case again will be required to be heard and decided afresh. We are, however, of the opinion that though there was valuation report on record, the learned Judge proceeded with the matter contrary to the requirement of the Evidence Act. It may be that the respondent did not prove valuation report by examining the scribe or any person to prove the contents of the valuation report, but when we are setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Judge, which was delivered relying on the valuation report, which was not proved, it will be in the interest of justice to permit the respondent to prove the valuation report by adducing necessary evidence before the learned Appellate Judge.
7. Under the above-said circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Small Cause Court, for deciding the same afresh after permitting the respondent to adduce evidence only for the purpose of proving the valuation report. For this purpose, the respondent shall make necessary application for permitting him to adduce evidence for the purpose of proving the valuation report. Except for this limited purpose, the respondent shall not be entitled to adduce any other evidence. Since GRV is fixed for the assessment year 1994-95, we direct that the appeal shall be disposed of expeditiously.
The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Sd/-
(C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top