Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ram Saroop vs Dev Raj And Others on 10 March, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 1627/2013
Ram Saroop .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Anil Sethi, Adv.
vs
Dev Raj and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, Adv.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
10.03.2025
Oral:
1. This present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 104 of
the Constitution of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir
corresponding to Article 227 of the Constitution of India for transferring
the suit tilted, “Bal Krishan Baru and others vs. Ram Saroop and
another” pending before the court of Sub Judge, Jammu to any other
court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the statement of the
plaintiff Dev Raj, who appeared as his own witness, was recorded on
14.09.2013 and his testimony revealed that at the filing of the suit, the
value of the property was Rs. 12 lacs to 15 lacs. This Court had
summoned the original record from the learned trial court for today only.
A perusal of the same reveals that the learned trial court had framed the
preliminary issue in respect of the valuation of the suit, which is
extracted as under:
2
OWP No. 1627/2013
“whether the suit has not been property valued for
the purpose of court fee, if so what is its effect on
the suit? OPD”
2. The said issue was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated
04.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
3. The record further depicts that after filing of this petition, the petitioner
also laid a motion under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
on 17.12.2013 for return of the plaint before the learned trial court on the
similar grounds which is urged in the present petition and was decided by
the learned trial court vide order dated 23.04.2016.
4. Once the issue in respect of the valuation of the court fee has been
adjudicated by the learned trial court and prayer for return of the plaint
has been rejected by the learned trial court, the petitioner cannot raise the
same issue before this Court, particularly when he had not chosen to
assail order dated 04.05.2005 (supra) because the issue decided by the
learned trial court had a nexus with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
learned trial court.
5. In view of this, the petitioner cannot raise aforesaid issue time and again,
as such, the present writ petition is found to be misconceived and the
same is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu:
10.03.2025
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/NoRakesh Kumar
2025.03.12 09:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document