Sakeel vs Mohammad Saeed
2024 Latest Caselaw 17838 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sakeel vs Mohammad Saeed on 17 May, 2024

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37903
 
Court No. - 7 
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2455 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Sakeel
 
Respondent :- Mohammad Saeed
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Qazi Mohd.Ahmad,Pawan Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner.

2. By means of present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree 20.03.2024 passed by Nayaadhikari, Gram Nyalayas Tulsipur, Balrampur, in Regular Suit No. 877/2013 (Mohammad Saeed Vs. Shakeel).

3. At the very outset, on a query made by this Court, the counsel fairly submits that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 1000/- and according to the petitioner, the suit which is valued of Rs. 1000/-, an appeal would not be maintainable under Section 34 of of the Gram Nayayay Act, 2008. According to Section 34 of the Gram Nayayal Act which provides for appeal in civil cases Section 2 has been couched in negative language that no appeal shall lie from any judgment firstly where the case has been decided with the consent of the parties; secondly when the amount or value of the subject matter of such suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees one thousand and lastly provides that except on a question of law, whether the amount or value of the subject matter of such suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees five thousand.

4. In the present case, learned counsel for petitioner has fairly submitted that the question of law in fact arises in the present case to the effect as to whether the oral evidence would prevail over the documentary evidence and whether in the present circumstances of the case where the original documents were not filed the court could have relied upon the photocopy of the said documents.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the his case is squarely covered under Clause (c) of Section 34 and accordingly an appeal would be maintainable.

6. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 34(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy of an appeal.

7. With the aforesaid directions / observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

8. Office is directed to return original copy of Annexure No. 1 to counsel for petitioner as per rules.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 17.5.2024

Ravi/