In Civil Revision No. 882 of 2009, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order regarding suit valuation. The court held that since the matter is pending trial and the defendant faced no prejudice, no revisional interference was called for.
Interference with the impugned order is refused and the Civil Revision Application is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.882 of 2009
======================================================
Bharat Rai, son of late Ram Chabila Rai, resident of village Basti Jalal, P.O. Basti Jalal, P.S. Dighawara, District Saran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshman Lal Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : ………………..
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by learned Vth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No. 560 of 2005 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner questioning valuation of the suit.
As the matter is pending for trial before the learned SubJudge, no prejudice can be stated to have been caused to the
Patna High Court C.R. No.882 of 2009 (3) dt.14-03-2013
2 / 2
defendant as regarding the suit valuation. Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the learned trial Court, the same is a matter between the Court and the plaintiffs and the defendant has no role in such matters.
It is well settled that unless such objections go to the root of the jurisdiction and/or the defendant is able to demonstrate any prejudice being cause to him by such valuation, the same requires no interference in revisional jurisdiction.
For the reasons aforesaid, no interference is called for in the order impugned and this application is accordingly, disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Bibhash/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revisional intervention is warranted when the defendant demonstrates no prejudice due to suit valuation.
Whether suit valuation objections require interference when they do not go to jurisdiction.
Bharat Rai
Uma Raman Das
Shri Guru Granth Saheb Panth Sitalpur
Most Chemeliya Devi
Sunil Chaudhur
Most Urmila Kuer
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
