Dismissed

Girdhari Laduram Sharma and Ors. v. Maroti Shamrao Gurav and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Nov 2011WP/9054/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition impugning an order rejecting an application to set aside a plaint for insufficient court fees. The court held that since the suit sought only injunction relief rather than declaration, fixed court fees were proper, and the Trial Court's order could not be faulted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Girdhari Laduram Sharma and Ors. Vs Maroti… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp9054.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 9054 OF 2011

¶5

Girdhari S/o Laduram Sharma and others.

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Maroti S/o Shamrao Gurav and another

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Shri R.C. Patil, advocate for the petitioners Shri B.N. Patil, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶12

DATE : 28th November , 2011.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Trial Court, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner, purportedly under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code i.e. to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid the court fees as per valuation of the property.

¶15

Shri R.C. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction. When the suit is filed for relief of declaration, the plaintiff has to pay the requisite court fees as per the market value of the property. In the present case,

¶16

¶17

wp9054.11

¶18

the fixed court fees has been paid. As per the market value of the property, the plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees. The Court below has not considered these aspects.

¶19

Shri B.N. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order.

¶20

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the proceedings. The prayers made in the suit go to show that the suit is for simplicitor injunction. No relief of declaration is claimed in the suit. When the suit is for simplicitor injunction, then the same has been valued as per Section 6(v) (r) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which is legal and proper. It is only if the relief of declaration of title would have been claimed then the plaintiff is required to value the suit as per the Section 6(4)(1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. In the present case, as the suit is for simplicitor injunction, it has been properly valued.

¶21

In view of the above, the impugned order could not be faulted with. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

[S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE

¶23

sag/wp 9054.11

Girdhari Laduram Sharma and Ors. v. Maroti Shamrao Gurav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari Laduram Sharma and Ors. v. Maroti Shamrao Gurav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Shah Fazullah Hussaini @ Asif Late Syed Yakub Ali Hussaini and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivshankar Uday Gunjal and Anr. Vs Jaywant Harji Gunjal Patil and Ors.

Bharat Nagnathrao Khogre Vs State of Maharashtra and Rs

Dena Bank through Its Branch Manager Vs Vindhyawasini Medical and General Stores and Ors.

Janardhan Santram Patil Vs Babasaheb Hariba Gavde and Anr.

Manikchand Bansilal Badjate Vs Lahu Rambhau Dukare