Smt.Nikita Nishi v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6110 of 2011 ====================================================== Smt.Nikita Nishi , d/o Umesh Mandal, r/o village bagarha, p.S. Farbisganj District Araria at present R/o Mohalla Shanti Niketan Hata (Tatma Toli ) P.S. K. Hat, District Purnia .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Law Secretary

2. Swarn Mani Singh s/o Sri Gajendra narain Singh r/o Mohalla Basant Bihar Colony (Lalganj ) By pass road, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnia .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2015 Heard Sri Ram Shankar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP No. 20.

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 26.10.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 48 of 2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that the Suit was filed for declaration of title by the plaintiff/ respondent no. 2. He submits that since the Suit was under valued a preliminary objection petition was filed by the defendant/ petitioner. He submits that in view of valuation the pecuniary jurisdiction was also required to be decided. From the defendant's side two petitions were filed. One was in respect of preliminary objection on the ground of valuation of the Suit as well as pecuniary

Patna High Court CWJC No.6110 of 2011 (2) dt.30-06-2015 2/3 jurisdiction and second petition was filed for adding certain issues which were settled earlier on 4.6.2010. The prayer was made for adding issues, which are as follows:- "(i) Is the suit under valued?

(ii) Is the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?

(iii) Whether the above mentioned suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court?

(iv) Whether this court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?"

The learned court below rejected the petition in respect of preliminary objection. However, the additional issues prayed by the petitioner was accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the court that the Suit was completely under valued and as such the same issue was required to be decided before proceeding on the merit of the case, which has not been done.

Besides hearing, I have perused the materials available on record including the impugned order. The issue which was raised by the petitioner was a mixed question of fact and law which was obviously not required to be adjudicated at the preliminary stage, and as such, the court is of the opinion that while allowing the prayer made by the petitioner in the 2nd petition i.e. allowing the additional issue, the court below has

Patna High Court CWJC No.6110 of 2011 (2) dt.30-06-2015 3/3 rightly rejected the preliminary objection petition. I do not find any defect in the order impugned. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U