- (1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Suit No.893 of 2008 (Mohan Chandra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and also the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Sitapur, in Civil Revision No.27 of 2015 (Pradeep Sahni Vs. Mohan Chandra and Others).
(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the defendant and running Cloth business in a wooden shop measuring 8 x 8 feet situated at Nazul Plot No.814 PP at Mohalla Thomsonganj, Mini Paraw, Sitapur, Pargana Khairabad, District Sitapur. In the year 1991, the Dy. Commissioner, Sitapur, granted a patta/lease for a period of 30 years in favour of the brother of the petitioner-Jivesh Sahni in respect of the land in question on which the wooden shop is situated through a registered lease deed dated 29.07.1991. Later on, under a scheme floated by the State Government for converting such lease on Nazul plots into free hold, in the year 1996 a fresh hold deed was executed through Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur, and the brother of the petitioner became the owner of the land in question by the registered free hold deed dated 19.01.1996. The contesting-respondents, i.e. opposite party nos.2 to 7 filed a Regular Suit No.893 of 2008 praying for a declaration that the lease deed executed on 07.03.1991 and the free hold lease deed dated 18.01.1996 be declared as void giving no right to the defendant therein and also for a direction to the defendants to remove the hold in Shop/Khokha from the disputed land in question. The petitioner filed written statement in which a specific plea was taken that there was under valuation of the Suit and less Court Fee paid, issues were framed and Issue no.4 as well as Issue no.6 has been decided by the learned Trial Court by the order dated 23.06.2015.
(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Decision/Adjudication of Issue no.4 in the order dated 23.02.2015. He has pointed out on the basis of Section 12 (ii) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 that when the petitioner approached the learned Additional District Judge in Revision, the Revisional Court also did not consider the mater appropriately and rejected the Revision. It has been pointed out that after the disputed land was converted into free hold, the brother of the petitioner sold off the land to the petitioner and in the registered sale deed, it has come out that the value of the land alongwith shop situated thereon, as per the declared Circle rates of the Government was Rs.3,42,000/-. The learned Trial Court without looking into the allegations of severe under valuation of the property in question had only considered the fact that the plaintiffs wanted the declaration and has valued the property only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. He has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailendra Bhardwaj and Others Vs. Chandra Pal and Another reported in 2013 (118) RD 310, to say that the value of the entire property should be considered as on date of filing of the Suit and this fact has been ignored by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court.;