IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 504 of 2009 Baikunth Nath, S/o Indra Dutt, R/o B-32, Satyawati Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Phase III, New Delhi, At present R/o Shiv Chand Bhawan, Bhola Giri Road, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ……………Petitioner. Versus Vinod Sagar Kaushik, S/o Late Sri Guru Dutt Kaushik, R/o Shiv Chand Bhawan, Bhola Giri Road, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ………… Respondent Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) This petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 12.12.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Ist Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in Suit No. 280 of 2001, and order dated 05.03.2009, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil 2 Revision No. 03 of 2009, and Civil Revision No. 04 of 2009. (3) Brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the plaintiff / respondent instituted Suit No. 280 of 2001, for cancellation of free hold deed dated 14.07.1999, executed in favour of the defendant No. 4. Also, the plaintiff has sought relief directing the State (defendant No. 1) to execute free hold deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land in suit. It appears that after filing the written statement, the trial court framed issues, including issue No. 4, relating to valuation of court fee. In earlier round of litigation, the findings given vide order dated 10.08.2006, by the trial court, was challenged in Civil Revision No. 88 of 2006, before the District Judge, Haridwar, and later by filing Writ Petition No. 1908 of 2006 (M/S), before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 26.12.2007, disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the finding of the trial court as to valuation of the suit and the property in question and payment of court fee (except in respect of relief ‘B’), is affirmed, and accordingly, the order dated 27.10.2006, passed by the revisional court was set aside, affirming the order of the revisional court in respect of relief ‘B’. Thereafter, the trial court in compliance of said order, after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 12.12.2008. Again, the defendant, dissatisfied with the order filed Civil Revision No. 3 03 of 2009, and Civil Revision No. 04 of 2009, before the District Judge, Haridwar, who vide impugned order dated 05.03.2009, dismissed the Civil Revision No. 03 of 2009, and partly allowed Civil Revision No. 04 of 2009. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though vide order dated 26.12.2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 1908 of 2006 (M/S), order of the revisional court in respect of relief ‘B’ in the suit was affirmed, but still vide impugned order, the District Judge, Haridwar, has directed the trial court to assess the valuation of property and court fee payable thereon in accordance with Rules. Here, this Court feels it necessary to quote the operative portion of the order, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1908 of 2006 (M/S), which reads as under:- “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the observation that the finding of the trial court as to the valuation of the suit and the property in question and payment of court fee (except as to relief ‘B’) is affirmed, and the impugned order dated 27.10.2006, passed by the revisional court to the extent it sets aside the findings of the trial court on valuation and payment of court fee for relief ‘A’ is quashed. However, on relief No. ‘B’ the order of 4 the revisional court, is affirmed. The interim order dated 22.12.2006 passed by this Court stands automatically vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible.” (5) The District Judge, Haridwar, vide impugned order dated 05.03.2009 has passed the following order in its operative portion:- “flfoy fuxjkuh la[;k 03@2009 cSdqUB ukFk cuke fouksn lkxj dkSf'kd vkfn fujLr dh tkrh gSA flfoy fuxjkuh la[;k 04@2009 fouksn lkxj dkSf'kd cuke mRrjkapy jkT; vkfn vkaf'kd :Ik ls Lohdkj djrs gq;s iz'uxr vkns'k vkaf'kd :Ik ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA dsl voj U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd voj U;k;ky; okn dk ewY;kadu fu.kZ; esa fn;s x;s vkCtosZ'ku ,oa ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds izdk'k esa izfrdj *c* ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr djds vnkdnkZ U;k;'kqYd fu;ekuqlkj fu/kkZfjr djsA voj U;k;ky; ls lEcfU/kr ewy fjdkMZ vfoyEc voj U;k;ky; dks okfil izsf’kr fd;k tk;sA ,d izfrfyfi fuxjkuh la0 4@2009 ij j[kh tk;sA” (6) The above order passed by the revisional court shows that it has directed the trial court to assess the valuation in compliance of this Court’s order, passed in the writ petition. As such, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional court vide its order dated 05.03.2009, in Civil Revision No. 03 of 2009, and Civil Revision No. 04 of 2009. Therefore, this 5 Court does not find any force in the petition, which is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 2560 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant., J.) 06.04.2009 NS