The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of applications to correct court fee valuation and appoint a valuer in a partition suit. The Court held that the matter is not prejudicial as the preliminary issue on valuation will be decided later after evidence adduction.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 W.P. 124.2012
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2012
Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 09/01/2012.
Mr. Satish.S.Manale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
PER COURT :
2 W.P. 124.2012
appointment of valuer. The said application is rejected. The said order is also impugned in the present Writ Petition.
3 W.P. 124.2012
the said preliminary issue regarding valuation and the payment of court fees and after said preliminary issue is decided, one way or the other, the Court can give further directions depending the decision of the said preliminary issue.
[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 124.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court may examine the correctness of the rejection of applications to correct fee valuation and appoint a valuer.
Whether the impugned order is prejudicial to the petitioner requiring writ interference.
Petitioner
Respondent
S.V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
