Dismissed

Basudeo Singh v. Additional District Judge CT.NO.14 and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018WRIC/53135/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on pecuniary grounds was rejected. The court held that since the defendant failed to produce evidence despite an objection, the lack of opportunity to frame the issue did not vitiate the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Basudeo Singh Vs Additional District Judge… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53135 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Basudeo Singh Respondent :- Additional District Judge Ct.No.14 And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Lal Babu,Lal Babu Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

There is no objection to the amendment application dated 26.5.2016. The amendment application no. 07 of 2018 is, thus, allowed.

¶6

This is the defendant's petition, directed against the order dated 19.9.2011 whereby three issues namely issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 relating to the suit valuation, the Court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), have been determined.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, had taken a specific objection with regard to the valuation of the suit property and stated in paragraph '8' of the written statement that the suit property was valued for more than Rs. 2 lacs and as such, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

¶8

However, despite a categorical objection taken by him pertaining to the suit valuation, the issues were decided on the date of framing of the same, itself. No opportunity, thus, has been granted to the petitioner/defendant to bring evidence before the Court below to substantiate his pleadings in paragraph '8' of the written statement regarding correct valuation of the suit property.

¶9

To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note that on the date of decision on the aforesaid issues, the counsel for the defendant was present before the Court below. No objection, it appears, had been taken by the counsel seeking time for bringing evidence before the trial Court. Further from a perusal of the recall application 18.10.2011 moved by the petitioner/defendant no. 1, it is evident that even with the said application, no evidence was brought before the trial court to substantiate the pleadings in paragraph '8' of the written statement that the suit property was having valuation of more than Rs. 2 lacs rather the petitioner/defendant had pleaded in the recall application that the Court shall issue an amin commission for getting the correct valuation of the suit property.

¶10

It is, further, evident that the revision was filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1 and even before the revisional court, no evidence was brought on record. No such evidence has also been brought on record of the present petition also.

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in case, opportunity would have been granted to the petitioner/defendant to

¶12

bring evidence before the trial court, he could have proved the suit property being of higher valuation is, therefore, no entertainable.

¶13

No other point has been pressed.

¶14

No objection, therefore, can be taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to entertain the suit.

¶15

For the aforesaid, the present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Brijesh

Basudeo Singh v. Additional District Judge CT.NO.14 and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudeo Singh v. Additional District Judge CT.NO.14 and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meeta Bandopadhyay Vs Ram Krishna Mishra and 5 Others

Abu Laish Vs Civil Judge and 15 Others

Tara Rani Singh and 2 Others Vs Ashok Kumar Singh and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs Jogendra Singh and 2 Others

Naveen Kumar Jain and 15 Others Vs Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Ram Niwas Vs Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (D.a.a.) and 2 Others