IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No: 279 of 2007 Judgment reserved on: 11.4.2008 Date of decision: 1.5.2008 Ram Dass ..Petitioner Versus Achhru Ram ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. B.S.Attri, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Arki, dated 22.8.2007 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) CPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants and one of the grounds raised is that the suit has not been properly 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The defendants filed an application seeking permission to tender the valuation report of the expert to prove the valuation of the house which is sought to be demolished. The learned trial court allowed this application. Hence the present petition. It has been urged on behalf of the plaintiffs- petitioners that the report was filed at the belated stage after an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the defendants had been rejected. In my view the rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has no connection with the present application. As already pointed out above, in the original written statement the defendants had clearly taken the plea that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The suit is still at the stage of recording of evidence and, therefore, no harm or prejudice is caused to the plaintiffs in case the said document is permitted to be placed and proved on record. However, I am constrained to observe that the learned trial court while passing the orders, in para 7 has recorded, that issues have still not been framed in the main suit. This shows total lack of application of mind on 3 behalf of the learned trial court. Issues in this case had been framed as far back as on 21.6.2003 and in fact even evidence of one witness had been recorded on 6.11.2004. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that despite the fact that issues had been framed and part of the evidence had been recorded, the defendants were still entitled to place and prove on record the valuation report. This document is essential to decide the issue of valuation which has been framed as issue No. 7. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly rejected. May 1, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.