Smt. Purnima Mishra v. Smt. Mohini Mishra and others). The revisionist had raised objections regardin

1. Heard Shri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The instant civil revision has been filed by one of the defendant of Original Suit No.2/2010 (Smt. Purnima Mishra v. Smt. Mohini Mishra and others). The revisionist had raised objections regarding the valuation of the suit and also pressed for getting the property valued inasmuch as, as per the revisionist, the valuation of the property was incorrectly shown as one lac and odd by the plaintiff-respondents whereas the property was worth crores.

3. It is further stated that the Amin submitted its report regarding valuation and he assessed the property valued at Rs.6,28,77,265/- and, therefore, the Court taking note of the said valuation as correct directed the Munsarim to submit its report regarding the Court fee and further directed the plaintiff to amend the valuation. This order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi is under challenged in the instant revision.

4. The aforesaid revision came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on

10.07.2024. The revisionist soon thereafter moved an application seeking restoration bearing IA No.6/2024 on 12.07.2024. While the said application for recall was pending, in the meantime, the sole revisionist 2 CLRE No. 8 of 2022 Smt. Chitra Mishra left for her heavenly abode and her legal heirs, namely, Shivendra Nath Mishra and Madhavendra Nath Mishra moved an application bearing IA No.7/2024 for substitution.

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court has considered the application for substitution dated 19.11.2024. The said application clearly indicates that the sole revisionist expired on 08.09.2024. The application for substitution has been moved within time and there is no serious objection. Consequently, the application for substitution is allowed.

6. Thereafter, the Court has considered the application for restoration of the civil revision.

7. Noticing the ground shown and that the application was moved immediately after the order of dismissing the revision in default was passed, ground shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for recall is also allowed and the revision is restored to its original number to be heard and contested on merits. Order on Merit

8. The Court has heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the revisionist No.1. Since, the contesting parties are before this Court, hence, the Court has proceeded to hear them.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent No.1 as plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition. The said suit came to be registered as R.S. No.2/2010. In the plaint, the suit property has been valued at Rs.1,08,000/- based on thirty times of the annual rental value. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claimed 1/48th share of the property and thereupon the Court fee was paid. This was not acceptable to the revisionist, who filed his objections and it was urged that the property was worth crores.

10. Taking note of the aforesaid, the property was inspected by an Amin, who furnished its report dated 03.01.2022 indicating the property to be somewhere Rs.6,28,77,265/-. It is further urged that in her objection, the revisionist filed objections to the said report. In the meantime, objection 3 CLRE No. 8 of 2022 to the same was also filed by the respondent which thereafter was considered by the trial Court and by means of an order dated 28.02.2022, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to amend its valuation and bring it in consonance with the valuation furnished by the Amin as well as directed the Munsarim to furnish the report regarding the Court fee payable.

11. This order which is under challenge and it is urged by the counsel for the revisionist that detailed objections were filed which have not been properly considered by the trial Court and the order impugned is per se bad in law.

12. Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the order does not decide the rights of the parties and in any case it has no impact on the jurisdiction of the Court, hence, the issue of valuation pales into insignificance and against such an order a civil revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable.

13. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

14. Apparently, the facts which are not disputed are that the respondent No.1 was a plaintiff of R.S. No.2/2010, a copy of the plaint has been brought on record as Annexure No.2, wherein the valuation has been mentioned in Para-8 of the plaint and it has clearly been indicated that the valuation has been made on the basis of the annual rental value and the market value is to be treated as thirty times of the same, accordingly, the valuation was correctly made.

15. As far as the issue regarding the valuation and Court fee is concerned, there is apparently nothing on the record which could indicate that the plaint was incorrectly valued or there was any deficiency in Court fee. It is always open for the revisionist to raise the issue but unless the issue of valuation impacts the jurisdiction of Court to entertain the suit, it cannot be said that in all cases such a defendant has a right of assailing the order regarding valuation in a civil revision under Section 115 CPC. This aspect of the matter has already been considered way back of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Gemini Continental (P) Ltd., Lucknow v. District Judge, Lucknow and others, 1998 (16) LCD 1106. 4 CLRE No. 8 of 2022

16. Now, in case if the Amin's report is seen, which has been brought on record as Annexure No.5, the manner in which the said report has been placed creates a doubt of its veracity inasmuch as the details which have been mentioned regarding the basis upon which the valuation has been made not only in respect of the number of bricks laid in the plinth, but the manner in which the windows and doors and the slab has been valued as well as the cost of several trees has been calculated without indicating what was the basis for taking such valuation leaves a lot to be said.

17. Objections to the said valuation report were also placed on record, however, the same have not been considered. The impugned order passed by the Civil Judge does not indicate any due application of judicial mind. Apparently because a report has been submitted by an Amin ipso facto does not give any credence unless the same is noticed and subject to the objections it is either confirmed or is made to subject to evidence be led by the parties.

18. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the core methodology adopted by the plaintiff to value the suit i.e. thirty times of the valuation of annual rental value and what would be the Court fee is payable in a suit for partition and how the market value is to be calculated is provided under Section 7(vi-A) and 7(v), (v-A)(v-B) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as the case may be.

19. In the given circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned dated 28.02.2022 does not reflect the proper application of judicial mind and the said Amin's report has been accepted and a direction has been issued to the Munsarim to report regarding payment of Court fee without considering the objection and the merit of the report.

20. In the given circumstances, the trial Court has definitely exceeded its jurisdiction in passing an order which cannot be sustained in law. This Court finds that the impugned order cannot be maintained and accordingly it is set aside. The matter stands restored with the trial Court, who shall after affording full opportunity to the parties concerned decide the issue again in accordance with law.

21. This Court further notices that large number of parties in the suit are 5 CLRE No. 8 of 2022 senior citizens. The suit has been engaging the attention of the trial Court since 2010, accordingly, in the given circumstances, this Court feels appropriate to issue a direction to the trial Court that it shall expedite the proceedings and an endeavour be made to decide the suit after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. Any attempt by either of the parties to delay the proceedings should be occasioned with appropriate and realistic cost as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. as well as Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 1.

22. With the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. December 8, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The instant civil revision has been filed by one of the defendant of Original Suit No.2/2010 (Smt. Purnima Mishra v. Smt. Mohini Mishra and others). The revisionist had raised objections regarding the valuation of the suit and also pressed for getting the property valued inasmuch as, as per the revisionist, the valuation of the property was incorrectly shown as one lac and odd by the plaintiff-respondents whereas the property was worth crores.

3. It is further stated that the Amin submitted its report regarding valuation and he assessed the property valued at Rs.6,28,77,265/- and, therefore, the Court taking note of the said valuation as correct directed the Munsarim to submit its report regarding the Court fee and further directed the plaintiff to amend the valuation. This order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi is under challenged in the instant revision.

4. The aforesaid revision came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on

10.07.2024. The revisionist soon thereafter moved an application seeking restoration bearing IA No.6/2024 on 12.07.2024. While the said application for recall was pending, in the meantime, the sole revisionist 2 CLRE No. 8 of 2022 Smt. Chitra Mishra left for her heavenly abode and her legal heirs, namely, Shivendra Nath Mishra and Madhavendra Nath Mishra moved an application bearing IA No.7/2024 for substitution.

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court has considered the application for substitution dated 19.11.2024. The said application clearly indicates that the sole revisionist expired on 08.09.2024. The application for substitution has been moved within time and there is no serious objection. Consequently, the application for substitution is allowed.

6. Thereafter, the Court has considered the application for restoration of the civil revision.

7. Noticing the ground shown and that the application was moved immediately after the order of dismissing the revision in default was passed, ground shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for recall is also allowed and the revision is restored to its original number to be heard and contested on merits. Order on Merit

8. The Court has heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the revisionist No.1. Since, the contesting parties are before this Court, hence, the Court has proceeded to hear them.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent No.1 as plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition. The said suit came to be registered as R.S. No.2/2010. In the plaint, the suit property has been valued at Rs.1,08,000/- based on thirty times of the annual rental value. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claimed 1/48th share of the property and thereupon the Court fee was paid. This was not acceptable to the revisionist, who filed his objections and it was urged that the property was worth crores.

10. Taking note of the aforesaid, the property was inspected by an Amin, who furnished its report dated 03.01.2022 indicating the property to be somewhere Rs.6,28,77,265/-. It is further urged that in her objection, the revisionist filed objections to the said report. In the meantime, objection 3 CLRE No. 8 of 2022 to the same was also filed by the respondent which thereafter was considered by the trial Court and by means of an order dated 28.02.2022, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to amend its valuation and bring it in consonance with the valuation furnished by the Amin as well as directed the Munsarim to furnish the report regarding the Court fee payable.

11. This order which is under challenge and it is urged by the counsel for the revisionist that detailed objections were filed which have not been properly considered by the trial Court and the order impugned is per se bad in law.

12. Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the order does not decide the rights of the parties and in any case it has no impact on the jurisdiction of the Court, hence, the issue of valuation pales into insignificance and against such an order a civil revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable.

13. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

14. Apparently, the facts which are not disputed are that the respondent No.1 was a plaintiff of R.S. No.2/2010, a copy of the plaint has been brought on record as Annexure No.2, wherein the valuation has been mentioned in Para-8 of the plaint and it has clearly been indicated that the valuation has been made on the basis of the annual rental value and the market value is to be treated as thirty times of the same, accordingly, the valuation was correctly made.

15. As far as the issue regarding the valuation and Court fee is concerned, there is apparently nothing on the record which could indicate that the plaint was incorrectly valued or there was any deficiency in Court fee. It is always open for the revisionist to raise the issue but unless the issue of valuation impacts the jurisdiction of Court to entertain the suit, it cannot be said that in all cases such a defendant has a right of assailing the order regarding valuation in a civil revision under Section 115 CPC. This aspect of the matter has already been considered way back of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Gemini Continental (P) Ltd., Lucknow v. District Judge, Lucknow and others, 1998 (16) LCD 1106. 4 CLRE No. 8 of 2022

16. Now, in case if the Amin's report is seen, which has been brought on record as Annexure No.5, the manner in which the said report has been placed creates a doubt of its veracity inasmuch as the details which have been mentioned regarding the basis upon which the valuation has been made not only in respect of the number of bricks laid in the plinth, but the manner in which the windows and doors and the slab has been valued as well as the cost of several trees has been calculated without indicating what was the basis for taking such valuation leaves a lot to be said.

17. Objections to the said valuation report were also placed on record, however, the same have not been considered. The impugned order passed by the Civil Judge does not indicate any due application of judicial mind. Apparently because a report has been submitted by an Amin ipso facto does not give any credence unless the same is noticed and subject to the objections it is either confirmed or is made to subject to evidence be led by the parties.

18. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the core methodology adopted by the plaintiff to value the suit i.e. thirty times of the valuation of annual rental value and what would be the Court fee is payable in a suit for partition and how the market value is to be calculated is provided under Section 7(vi-A) and 7(v), (v-A)(v-B) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as the case may be.

19. In the given circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned dated 28.02.2022 does not reflect the proper application of judicial mind and the said Amin's report has been accepted and a direction has been issued to the Munsarim to report regarding payment of Court fee without considering the objection and the merit of the report.

20. In the given circumstances, the trial Court has definitely exceeded its jurisdiction in passing an order which cannot be sustained in law. This Court finds that the impugned order cannot be maintained and accordingly it is set aside. The matter stands restored with the trial Court, who shall after affording full opportunity to the parties concerned decide the issue again in accordance with law.

21. This Court further notices that large number of parties in the suit are 5 CLRE No. 8 of 2022 senior citizens. The suit has been engaging the attention of the trial Court since 2010, accordingly, in the given circumstances, this Court feels appropriate to issue a direction to the trial Court that it shall expedite the proceedings and an endeavour be made to decide the suit after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. Any attempt by either of the parties to delay the proceedings should be occasioned with appropriate and realistic cost as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. as well as Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 1.

22. With the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. December 8, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench