Lok Pal Singh, J
1) Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 16.10.2015, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, in O.S. no. 120 of 2012, Yogesh
Chandra Upreti vs Puran Chandra Dumka, whereby the trial court has decided issue nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 as preliminary issues.
2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.
3) Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that that this revision though is directed against the common order dated 16.10.2015, but the
revisionist has not challenged the findings recorded by the trial court on issue nos. 8 and 11 and the instant revision is directed only against the findings
recorded by issue nos. 9 and 10.
4) Issue no. 8 has been decided by the trial court vide order dated 16.10.2015 directing that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff /
respondent and he was directed to pay ad-valorem court fee of Rs. 16,01,000/- on the sale consideration of the property mentioned in the instrument
itself.
5) Revisionist / defendant, who had filed his counter claim, has also claimed that the agreement to sale dated 14.09.2011 is null and void. However, in
paragraph nos. 34 and 35, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction has not been filled.
6) Learned trial court while recording its finding on issue no. 9 has observed that the defendant has not filled the relevant columns of the counter claim
and has paid a court fee of Rs.200/-and there is no pleadings as to its valuation for jurisdiction purpose and payment of court fee, which is compulsory
content to be mentioned in the counter claim.
7) Having considered this fact that the defendant / revisionist was directed to amend the counter claim so as to insert necessary details so as to its
valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fee, otherwise the counter claim will be liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After recording the finding on issue no. 9, trial court permitted the defendant / revisionist to correct the counter
claim. The trial court framed issue no. 10 to the following effect:
“Whether the court fee paid by the defendant for counter claim is insufficient?â€
8) The trial court has decided issue no. 10 and directed the defendant / revisionist to deposit the ad valorem court fee. Since the trial court itself
decided issue no. 9 against the defendant / revisionist and directed him to correct and fill the valuation clause, in that eventuality, the trial court should
not have recorded its finding on issue no. 10.
9) In view of the above, finding recorded by the trial court on issue no. 10 is hereby set aside. The civil revision is allowed partly in view of the
findings recorded by the trial court on issue no. 9 vide impugned order dated 16.10.2015. The defendant / revisionist is permitted to correct the
valuation clause.
10) It is however directed that the trial court may proceed with the case, in accordance with law, and may pass further orders, as soon as the
defendant / revisionist complies with the directions issued by said court.
