ALI MOHD DARZI Vs. MOHD YOUSUF BHAT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ali Mohd Darzi
Mohd Yousuf Bhat
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.