Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) A suit for mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove structures on the land and seeking restoration of the land, was initiated by the plaintiff valuing the relief at Rs. 2,000/ -. The defendant objected the valuation which according to him was more than Rs. 5,000/ - and beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif. Ultimately, a report from the Commissioner was obtained with regard to valuation of the construction. However, after considering the said report, the learned Munsif has valued the relief at Rs. 5,000/ - by an order dated 24th August 1984 passed in suit No. 4 of 1983. The defendant preferred a revision being revision No. 91 of 1984. The revision was dismissed and the order of the trial court was affirmed. This writ petition has been moved against the said order claiming that valuation should be around 50,000/ - beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. Mr. S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that valuation has an impact on jurisdiction of the court. If the valuation is above 5,000/ - then the matter could not be decided by the Munsif and therefore there is jurisdictional error which is amenable to this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Misra at length. The fact remains that the suit was for a relief of recovering the land after removal of the structures by the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff has not claimed any relief with regard to the constructions. He has only sought for recovery of the land, valuation whereof has not been disputed and even the valuation as given by the report of the Commissioner appears to be less than 5,000/ -. It is the relief claimed that has to be valued. The structure may be of considerable valuation. But when the plaintiff is not seeking relief in respect of the structure and seeking its removal by the defendant in that event the plaintiff cannot be compelled to include valuation of the structure, for which he is not seeking any relief. Therefore even on that count, the valuation does not exceed Rs. 5,000/ -. Then again, it is the relief sought for which has been valued by the courts below and I have not been able to find out any infirmity in the two orders in view of the observation made hereinbefore. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order is hereby discharged. No order as to costs.
(3.) BY order dated 29.3.1988, further proceedings of suit No. 4 of 1983 was stayed. Long 15 years have elapsed after the suit was instituted and the suit remains stayed over such a long period. In that view of the matter, it is expected that the suit should be decided at the earliest. This Court expects that the suit will be disposed of within a period of one year from the date a copy of this order is communicated to the court below. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below by the registry forthwith.;