R.C. Bhardwaj vs Ram Parkash Sharma Etc.
1992 Latest Caselaw 220 Del

JUDGMENT

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.

(1) ADMIT. The Plaintiff has 1/6th share in the suit property and sought partition. The plaintiff valued the 1/6th share at Rs. 15,000.00 and on that basis gave jurisdiction to Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, who up to Rs. 25,000.00 could try the suit. On behalf of the defendants objection was raised that in a suit for partition the value of the entire property has to be taken for the purposes of jurisdiction and on plaintiff's own showing the value of the property to be partitioned would come to Rs. 90,000.00 and the jurisdiction for a suit of the value of Rs. 90,000.00 at that time was in the High Court but nowadays with the District Judge, who may try the suit himself or may hand over the same to Additional District Judge The trial court upheld this objection and held that the jurisdiction to try the suit is with the District Judge as the suit property is valued at Rs. 90,000.00, as per the finding recorded after taking evidence on record. It was ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction. The plaintiff came up in appeal before a Single Judge of this Court and the present Letters Patent Appeal is also by the plaintiff.

(2) On a consideration of the matter we find least ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge or of the Trial Court which are well reasoned.

(3) Counsel for the parties agree that today the District Judge or the Additional D.J, will have the jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, we direct the plaintiff to take the plaint from the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class and present to the Court of the Dj within two days of taking back of the plaint from the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class.

(4) Before the Court where the plaintiff would now present the plaint, the defendant may raise an objection that the date of filing of the plaint would be the date when it is presented before the competent court and on that basis it may be time barred. Plaintiff's interest has been fully safeguarded under the provision of S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In such an eventuality we hope that the concerned Judge will take notice of the said provision and consider the objection, if raised by the defendants.

(5) We also make it clear that since evidence on merit has already been recorded, that record itself will also be transferred to the Court to whom ultimately the plaint is handed over for disposal and that record will form part of the record of that court whether it is the Court of the D.J. or of the A.D.J. as the case may be. However, it will be open to the D.J. or the A.D.J., as the case may be, to give liberty to the parties to lead any further evidence. With this order and direction the appeal stands disposed of.