Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Allahabad High Court

Mayank Jain vs Smt. Shashi Jain And Others on 15 July, 2010

Author: Krishna Murari

Bench: Krishna Murari

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40575 of 2010

Petitioner :- Mayank Jain
Respondent :- Smt. Shashi Jain And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- J.S. Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- Madan Mohan

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Suit   was   filed   by   the   plaintiff­petitioner   seeking   cancellation   of   the   sale  deed said to have been executed by his father in favour of the defendant­ respondents.   A   decree   of   injunction   was   also   claimed   to   restrain   the  defendant­respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the  suit property. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. The  defendant­respondents put in appearance and raised objection with regard  to the valuation of the suit and the court fees paid. Trial court framed two  issues ­ whether the suit is undervalued and whether the court fees paid is  sufficient   and   proceeded   to   decide   the   same   as   preliminary   issue.   The  plaintiff­petitioner   moved   an   application   for   disposal   of   his   temporary  injunction application. Trial court vide order dated 27.1.2010 came to the  conclusion   that   since   objection   has   been   raised   with   respect   to   the  valuation   and   court   fees   the   said   issues   shall   be   decided   before  considering   temporary  injunction  application.  The  plaintiff­petitioner  went  up  in   revision   which   has  been   dismissed.   Aggrieved,   the   petitioner  has  approached this Court.

The dispute is covered by a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the  case   of  Arun   Kumar   Tiwari   vs.   Smt.   Deepa   Sharma   &   others,  [2006(100) RD 427], wherein it has been held that whenever challenge is  made to the jurisdiction of the court as well as to the valuation of the suit  and  sufficiency of  the  court  fee  or to  the maintainability  of  the  suit,  the  proper procedure for the court is to first decide these issues and then to  decide the injunction application and other matters. In   view   of   above   law   laid   down   by   this   Court,   no   illegality   has   been  committed   by   the   court   below   in   proceeding   to   decide   the   issues   with  respect   to   the   valuation   of   the   suit   and   court   fees   before   deciding   the  temporary   injunction   application   as   such   the   impugned   orders   do   not  warrant any interference.

The petition stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.7.2010 nd