Chedi vs Smt. Sona Bai

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2013 (Ann. P.1) and order dated 12.7.2011 (Ann. P.3), passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Rampur District Satna in C.O.S. No. 167-A/10, whereby the issue No. 6-A and 6-B regarding valuation and court fees were decided and the petitioner was directed to value to the suit on the basis of market value of the house and the shop under construction and Dharmashala and pay the court fees accordingly by the earlier order and later order his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the suit for additional prayer for possession of the same property have been dismissed.

The petitioner''s counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record argued that in the available circumstance of the case the petitioner has valued the suit on the basis of the land revenue of concerned land, on which the property is situated and accordingly on twenty times of land revenue the suit was valued and court fees was paid accordingly. In such premises no further valuation or court fees is required in the matter and prayed for setting aside the earlier order. In continuation he said that initially the suit was filed in the hear 1998 subsequently in the year 2002 the petitioners were dispossess from the disputed property and that is why they have filed the impugned application of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in the year 2013 to insert the prayer for possession of such property and some relevant facts in that regard and the same ought to have been allowed by the trial court but the same has been dismissed under wrong premises and prayed for admission and allowing this petition.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments I have carefully perused the papers placed on record along with both the impugned orders. I am of the considered view that for the purpose of valuation of the suit and payment of court fees only the averments of the plaint could be considered and the objections and the averments of the written statement are not relevant to decide such question as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Babu Sukhram Singh Vs. Ram Dular Singh reported in AIR 1958 SC 245.

In view of such principle after going through the averments of the plaint (Ann. P.2), I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 12.7.2011 directing the petitioner to value the suit on the basis of market value of the property and pay the court fees accordingly and such order does not require any interference at this stage.

So far other part of the order dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is concerned, it is apparent fact that the impugned suit was initially filed by the petitioner in the year 1998 for declaration and other relief but the relief of possession was not prayed and as per submission of the petitioners'' counsel the petitioner was dispossess in the year 2002 and since then till 2013 no such application was filed to insert the relief for possession in the suit. So, in such premises apparently inspite having knowledge of such fact since 2002 for ten years no step was taken by the petitioner to propose the amendment in the plaint and as per principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, , the amendment application could not be allowed at later stage in the matter, specially after starting the process for recording the evidence in the matter, the same could not be allowed. So, in such premises, the remaining part of the order is also not required any interference at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any merits even for admission, consequently this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, in the available circumstance, the petitioner is extended a liberty to take appropriate steps to value the suit on the basis of market value of the disputed property and pay the court fees accordingly within 45 days from today, failing which the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order. Petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty, observation and directions.