Harendra Prasad Vs. Smt. Parshottama and Others

Harendra Prasad vs Smt. Parshottama and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 18, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/448339

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/448339
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.C. Mohapatra and ;Ch. Abdur Rahim, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 18, 1994
Case Number: F.A.F.O. No. 332 of 1998
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - review of order - Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - dispute relating to valuation of suit - no cogent evidence that valuation by plaintiff is unreasonable - objection relating to valuation should be at earlier stages of suit - findings not considered by Trial Court - held, review was correct...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 47, Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harendra Prasad

Advocate D.N. Pandey, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. Parshottama and Others

Advocate A.N. Bhargava and ;Kamla Prasad, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 47, Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976
Reported In: AIR1995All30

Excerpt

.....duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 5. on the facts of this case, we are satisfied that order dated 2-2-1987 has been correctly reviewed. for reasons indicated by us, we are satisfied that not having challenged valuation of the suit at earlier stage though opportunity was available, appellant should not have been permitted to raise the objection to arrest further progress of the suit to delay finality which is contrary to public policy of early dislosal......of the order. one of the grounds for review was that in civil revision the valuation of the suit was accepted by high court which has become final. trial court has accepted the same and reviewed its earlier order. this is grievance of appellant.4. learned counsel for appellant submitted that there being no error of law apparent on the face of the earlier order which is based on appreciation of evidence, review of the same is beyond scope of order 47, rule 1, c.p.c.5. on the facts of this case, we are satisfied that order dated 2-2-1987 has been correctly reviewed. plaintiff can value the suit reasonably. there is no. cogent evidence that valuation as given by plaintiffs is unreasonable or that undervalution has been made to avoid a court having jurisdiction, this was not considered by trial court in its order dated 2-2-1987. besides, appellant having opportunity to object to the valuation at the earlier stage of the suit ought not to be permitted to raise such objection peice meal. though, civil revision was confined to question of court fee only and trial court is not correct that the question of valuation has become final. for reasons indicated by us, we are satisfied that not having challenged valuation of the suit at earlier stage though opportunity was available, appellant should not have been permitted to raise the objection to arrest further progress of the suit to delay finality which is contrary to public policy of early dislosal. on this ground, order to the trial court could have been reviewed. respondent-plaintiffs can support an order on other grounds than basis of which impugned order was passed is vulnerable.6. in result, appeal has no merit, which is dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.7. appeal dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Mohapatra, J.

1. Defendant is appellant against an order allowing review.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for respondents that appeal is not maintainable. This has no merit in view of Order 43, Rule 1 ((W), C.P.C. added by amendment of Code of Civil Procedure by Act 104 of 1976. Appeal is maintainable.

3. Coming to merits of the appeal, it is found that valuation of the suit is the main dispute. Suit is for partition, originally respondent No. 1 filed the suit. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 was transposed as plaintiff No. 2 to continue the suit along with plaintiff No. 1. Both plaintiffs were called upon to pay court fee on the suit as valued by them. On objection of appellant that valuation of suit is more than ten lakhs. Trial court held that suit is undervalued as the building has not been properly valued. Plaintiffs filed an application for review of the order. One of the grounds for review was that in civil revision the valuation of the suit was accepted by High Court which has become final. Trial court has accepted the same and reviewed its earlier order. This is grievance of appellant.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that there being no error of law apparent on the face of the earlier order which is based on appreciation of evidence, review of the same is beyond scope of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C.

5. On the facts of this case, we are satisfied that order dated 2-2-1987 has been correctly reviewed. Plaintiff can value the suit reasonably. There is no. cogent evidence that valuation as given by plaintiffs is unreasonable or that undervalution has been made to avoid a court having jurisdiction, This was not considered by trial court in its order dated 2-2-1987. Besides, appellant having opportunity to object to the valuation at the earlier stage of the suit ought not to be permitted to raise such objection peice meal. Though, civil revision was confined to question of Court fee only and trial court is not correct that the question of valuation has become final. For reasons indicated by us, we are satisfied that not having challenged valuation of the suit at earlier stage though opportunity was available, appellant should not have been permitted to raise the objection to arrest further progress of the suit to delay finality which is contrary to public policy of early dislosal. On this ground, order to the trial Court could have been reviewed. Respondent-plaintiffs can support an order on other grounds than basis of which impugned order was passed is vulnerable.

6. In result, appeal has no merit, which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Appeal dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1994 Same Parties Harendra Prasad vs Smt. Parshottama and Others Same Subject Civil Same Judge S.C. Mohapatra and ;Ch. Abdur Rahim, JJ. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Orde...

Civil