Allahabad High Court
Hari Shankar vs Rakesh Kumari on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4971 of 2019
Petitioner :- Hari Shankar
Respondent :- Rakesh Kumari
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B. Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by trial court in Original Suit No.546 of 2012 rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the plaint and the order dated 5.4.2019 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Firozabad in Civil Revision No.40 of 2018 dismissing the revision.
The petitioner instituted the suit for declaring sale deed dated 5.7.2012 in favour of the respondent as null and void. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud upon him. He valued the suit property at Rs.10 lacs, the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and paid fixed court fees of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively for the relief of declaration and injunction. The defendant-respondent contested the suit alleging that the valuation made is incorrect and the court fees paid is insufficient. The trial court framed separate issues in respect of valuation of the suit and the court fees payable by the petitioner. While deciding issue no.1 relating to valuation, it held that the suit was rightly valued at Rs.10 lacs, the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed which is sought to be avoided. The trial court, while deciding issue no.2 relating to adequacy of court fees, held that since the petitioner is trying to avoid the sale deed and therefore, in pith and substance, the relief sought is for cancellation and upon which ad valorem court fees would be payable. The said order was not challenged and has attained finality. The petitioner instead filed an application seeking amendment in the valuation clause and tried to introduce a new valuation based on house tax payable for the suit property. The trial court rejected the amendment application by impugned order dated 17.10.2018 holding that the issue relating to valuation had already been decided and the application seeking amendment is malafide. The revisional court has upheld the order of the trial court.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the same property, some other suit is pending and upon which, the valuation has been made in a different manner. It is urged that in such circumstances, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the amendment application.
The valuation of the suit is to be made as per provisions of the Suit Valuation Act and court fees is paid as per provisions of Court Fees Act. The petitioner himself valued the suit property at Rs.10 lacs, the same amount which is mentioned as sale consideration paid in respect of the suit property. The trial court, while deciding the issue relating to sufficiency of court fees, has taken a view that since the relief sought is for cancellation of sale deed, therefore, ad valorem court fees is payable. The order passed by the trial court in this regard was not challenged and had attained finality.
In view of the above facts, the trial court was fully justified in denying amendment in the valuation clause. The revisional court has also rightly dismissed the revision concurring with the view taken by the trial court. This Court finds no illegality or jurisdictional error to warrant interference with the impugned orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
SL
