- (1.) Challenging the order dated 16th of September, 2009 passed by the Trial Court in civil suit No. 749 of 2008 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint has been rejected, the present revision under section 115, CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff. There is a shopping complex known as Butler Plaza Shopping Complex, 95, Civil Lines, Bareilly. The plaintiff/applicant is one of tenants at the ground floor in the aforesaid shopping complex which consists of about 400 shops.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that there is a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the same is also public trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the name of Methodist Church in India. The said society owns considerable property including the aforesaid shopping complex. The said shopping complex has been sold unauthorisedly without permission as required under law. The purchasers who are defendants tried to interfere in possession of the plaintiff. Hence the aforesaid suit has been instituted for the following reliefs: (a) that by passing decree of prohibitory injunction, defendant No. 1 be restrained from causing any interference in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the pltffs. Over shop No. E-19, situated at ground floor of Butler Plaza shopping complex at 95, Civil Lines Bareilly in any manner, either by pressurising them to make payment of rent or their forcible dispossession or alienation of the property on the strength of impugned sale-deed dated 8.2.2007., either by himself or through his agents, servants etc. - Valued at ' 5700/- (being one years' rental) (b) that it be adjudged and declared that the sale-deed dated 8.2.2007 executed by defendant Nos. 3 and 4, after flouting the Special POA executed by defendant No. 2 in their favour, in favour of defendant No. 1 (Prashant Arora) in respect of property situated at 95, Civil Lines, Bareilly popularly known as BUTLER PLAZA SHOPPING COMPLEX, registered in the office of S.R. Bareilly in book No. 1, vol. 1779 on pages 205-1812 at sl. No. 877 order be sent to S.R. Bareilly for appropriate notings in their records. -Valued at ' 19,85,95,710/- Court Fee-paid -Rs. 200/-
(3.) The defendants in reply raised pleas relating to valuation of the suit property and payment of Court fees. Preliminary issues in this regard were framed and were decided by the Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 21st of August, 2009 holding that the Court fees paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. The plaintiff is liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees. The entire shopping complex was valued at ' 19,85,95,710/-.;