ALI MOHD DARZI Vs. MOHD YOUSUF BHAT
LAWS(J&K)-2006-5-40
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 18,2006

Ali Mohd Darzi Appellant
VERSUS
Mohd Yousuf Bhat Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ALI Mohammed Darzi filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff Chadura, seeking a decree for declaration with consequential relief of injunction against Mohd Yousuf Bhat and Qumer -u -Nisa alias Nasreen. Defendants filed their written statement raising preliminary as also other objections to the suit of the plaintiff.
(2.) VIDE order dated 17.08.2005, following issues were framed by the learned Munsiff: - "i. Whether plaintiff is owner and in possession of suit property, a house measuring 33 X 50, three storied, tin roofed, if so, whether the same is in uninterrupted peaceful possession of same for last 36 years; liquidating all dues of water, electricity etc. OPP ii. If issue no.l is decided in affirmative, whether he (plaintiff) has spent three lacs, on the improvement of same. OPP iii Whether defendants are trying to dispossess, plaintiff from suit property and leveled vague allegations with agencies, if so, whether they do not have any right/locus stand to do so. OPP iv. Jurisdiction, pecuniary and territorial. OPP/OPD v. Valuation, Court fees and cause of action. OPP/OPD vi. Misjoinder of necessary parties, and maintainability. OPD vii. Relief. OPP"
(3.) ISSUE Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were treated as preliminary issues. Parties were, accordingly, directed to argue the case on the next date of hearing, which appears iron the record to be 13.09,2005. The record further hears testimony to the fact that some other date appears to have been fixed by the learned Munsiff, which was later on recorded as 13.09.2005 but without any initial of the learned Presiding Officer. On 13.09.2005, the case could not be taken up for hearing and was, accordingly, adjourned lo 25.10.2005 when costs amounting to rupees, nine hundred (Ks.900/ -) were paid. This order further - -indicates that an application had been moved by the plaintiff for summoning his witnesses, which was allowed and the witnesses ordered to be summoned for 30.1 1.2005. The case was adjourned to 30.11.2005 This is a crucial date of hearing when the plaintiff insisted for issuance of process for securing the presence of his witnesses, whereas learned Advocate for the defendants informed the Court that the suit stood dismissed vide , order dated 25.10.2005 and as such the witnesses sought to be summoned by the plaintiff could not be so summoned. It appears that the Presiding Officer of the Court of Munsiff Chadura stood transferred on (his date of hearing. Learned Munsiff appears to have adjourned the case to 27.12.2005. On this date of hearing, the learned Presiding Officer records that he had received a sealed envelope from his predecessor -in -interest, which was kept alongwith file. This revision petition of the plaintiff has arisen in the aforementioned circumstances. Plaintiff/petitioner seeks appropriate orders to set the records straight by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Respondents despite issuance of notices have opted -to -remain absent. They are, accordingly, set ex -parte.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.