A restoration application to recall the order dated 20-7-2006 has been filed whereby the revision was dismissed in default.
Cause shown is sufficient. The order dated 20-7-2006 dismissing the revision in default is recalled. The revision is restored to its original number.
Heard Sri S.S. Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.G. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present revision is directed against the order dated 8-8-1997 whereby the court below has decided issue no. 4 in favour of the plaintiff opposite parties. The plaintiff opposite parties instituted original suit no. 957 of 1986- Smt. Prakashwati and others Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Parihar and others. In that suit issue no. 4 was struck with regard to valuation of the suit property. It was valued at Rs. 2,27,500/- by the plaintiffs in the plaint. An objection having been raised by the defendants, issue no. 4 was struck. The court below by the order under revision has held that the valuation of the suit property is Rs. 10,25,000/- Being not satisfied by the said order, the defendant Smt. Prem Kumari Parihar has filed the present revision.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below has erred in law in holding that the valuation of the suit property is Rs. 10,25,000/- while it should be more than that. The submission is that the court below has wrongly discarded the report of Architect namely Sri S.C. Gupta (paper no. 95C) and has failed to consider the report of Amin in this regard. Learned counsel for the opposite parties , on the other hand, submits that no interference in the present revision is called for.
Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The court below has rejected the report of Sri S.C. Gupta, Architect on the ground that the said Architect has not been examined by the defendants. The said document is a private document and unless and until it is proved in accordance with law, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The said approach of the court below is perfectly justified and calls for no interference.
So far as the report of Amin is concerned, its bare perusal would show that the Amin has not given any basis in valuing the suit property at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per sq. yard. The Court was taken through the report dated 25-3-1991 of the court Amin filed as Annexure-5 to the stay application. On a plain reading of the said report, it would show that the said report is based on guess, conjectures and surmises. No basis has been mentioned therein for arriving at the market value of the suit property on the date of institution of the suit at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per sq. yard. Even if the said report was not taken into consideration by the court below, on a careful consideration of the said report, I find the order of the court below in this regard is not vitiated in as much as the report itself is not relevant.
Besides the above, the present revision has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is pending before the court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra. Even if the valuation of the suit property is enhanced, it will continue to remain pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). In other words, by enhancing the valuation of the suit property, the jurisdiciton of the court is not going to be affected in any manner. Therefore, no question of jurisdiction of court is involved.
It is well settled that question of payment of court fee is a matter in between the plaintiffs and the State Government. This being so, I do not find any merit in the revision. Filing of present revision appears to be nothing but an abuse of process of court. The suit is of the year 1986 and 24 years are going to be passed but due to dilatory tactics adopted by the defendants, it is pending till date.
In view of the above, it is necessary to issue a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and, if necessary, by fixing short dates and recording the evidence on day to day basis. The adjournment should be granted to the defendants only under exceptional circumstances and that too on payment of heavy costs which should not be less than Rs. 500/- per adjournment. If the defendants continue to seek adjournments, it shall be open to the trial court to enhance the costs of adjournments. The court shall make an endeavour to hear and dispose of the suit preferably within a period of one year.
The revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010 ALS