Sikkim High Court
RFA/11/2013 of Shiva Kumar Mukhia & Ano. Vs Shantosh Kumar Mukhia and Ors. on 24 June 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM CIVIL JURISDICTION RFA No.11 of 2013 Shiva Kumar Mukhia and Ors. Vs. Santhosh Kumar Mukhia and Ors. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDGE 07. 24.06.2014 Present : Mr. B. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. N. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
CIVIL JURISDICTION
RFA No.11 of 2013
Shiva Kumar Mukhia and Ors. Vs. Santhosh Kumar Mukhia and Ors.
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDGE
07. 24.06.2014
Present : Mr. B. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. N. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Shiva Kumar Mukhia, Appellant No.1 and Mr. D. B. Mukhia, Appellant No.2 in person.
Mr. K. T. Bhutia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bandana Pradhan, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 6.
Mr. Shantosh Kumar Mukhia, Respondent No.1 and Mr. M. K. Mukhia, Respondent No.5 in person.
Mr. S. K. Chettri and Mrs. Pollin Rai, Assistant Government Advocates for the Respondents No. 2 to 4.
-----
This Appeal is directed against the order dated 22-05-2013 (Annexure A4 to the Appeal) passed by the District Judge, South and West at Namchi in Title Suit No.10 of 2008 by which the plaint of the suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for it being undervalued.
Mr. B. Sharma, Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as it is contrary to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC.
Contd…..
Mr. K. T. Bhutia, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, contends that the Appeal would not be sustainable as they have neither challenged the order dated 06-10-2010 (Annexure A1 to the Appeal) passed by the District Judge, South and West at Namchi nor had they complied with it despite opportunity provided to them to value the suit properly and to pay appropriate court fees thereon. The subsequent order which is impugned by the Appellant, as per him, would give finality to the order dated 06-10-2010 and is not permissible for the Appellants to challenge it at this stage. Even assuming that the Appeal stands allowed, the Appellants would be barred by the law of limitation in bringing a fresh suit which they necessarily would be required to prefer.
Mr. B. Sharma, Learned Senior Advocate, submits that if the Appellants are given an opportunity to revalue the suit and pay the appropriate court fees, they would prefer not to press the present Appeal. Although, Mr. K. T. Bhutia, Learned Advocate, objects to this, I am of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, the Appellants ought to be given an opportunity to revalue the suit. Mr. Sharma fairly concedes that while revaluing the suit he shall take into consideration the report of the valuer, Exhibit A, and other relevant factors.
In such view of the matter, we may not go into the merits of the submissions urged on behalf of the parties and dispose of the Appeal on the basis of the fair concession made by the Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants.
The Appeal stands accordingly disposed of.
The Appellants shall be permitted to revalue the suit leaving it open for the Respondents to raise any objections that may be available to them under the law before the Learned Trial Court.
Contd…..
Consequently, the impugned order stands set aside. No order as to costs.
Judge
24-06-2014
Contd…..