Dismissed

Shri. Daji Ramji Patil, through Constituted Attorney, Kamlakar Baliram Patil v. Versatile Developers Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Vijaykumar Ranch and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013WP/3892/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a trial court order directing correction of suit valuation and payment of deficit court fee, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition finding no case for interference but extended the compliance time by four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; time to comply with trial court order extended by four weeks.

Shri. Daji Ramji Patil, through Constituted… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-3892.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3892 OF 2013

¶4

Daji Ramji Patil Through Constituted Attorney Kamlakar Baliram Patil : Petitioner. Versus Versatile Developers Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Vijaykumar Ranch and ors. : Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 24^th April 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 7/2/2013 passed by the 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasai by which order the Trial Court has directed the Petitioner i.e. the original Plaintiff to correct the valuation of the suit and to pay deficit court fee within one month from the date of the said order, failing which necessary consequence under Order VIIO Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure would follow.

¶9

2 The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff and the principal relief sought is in respect of the sale deed dated 30/7/2008 executed by one Vijaykumar who was the Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.5. The declaration sought is to the effect that the said sale

1 of 3

lgc

wp-3892.13

deed is not binding on the Plaintiff.

¶14

3 An objection was raised to the valuation of the suit by the Defendant by filing an application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the said application was converted to an application under Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The said application was considered by the Trial Court and having regard to the fact that the Petitioner i.e. the Plaintiff was seeking a declaration in respect of the sale deed dated 30/7/2008 which was executed by the said Vijaykumar who was the Power of Attorney of the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.5. The Trial Court was of the view that the suit therefore filed is one for avoidance of the sale deed and therefore covered by Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The Trial Court therefore issued directions which have been adverted to herein above.

¶15

4 In so far as the Bombay Court Fees Act is concerned, there is a specific provision which covers the suits which are filed for avoidance of the sale deeds, which is Section 6(iv)(ha). As indicated above, the Trial Court on a consideration of the relief sought in the suit was of the view that the same would be covered by the said provision.

2 of 3

lgc

wp-3892.13

5 Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Prabhune

¶20

and having perused the impugned order, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However the time to comply with the impugned order is extended by a period of four weeks from date.

¶21

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

lgc

Shri. Daji Ramji Patil, through Constituted Attorney, Kamlakar Baliram Patil v. Versatile Developers Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Vijaykumar Ranch and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Daji Ramji Patil, through Constituted Attorney, Kamlakar Baliram Patil v. Versatile Developers Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Vijaykumar Ranch and Ors.

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

Shri. Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (Decd) Heirs, Shri. Rama Ganpati Aaragade Vs Shri. Bhiva Dadu Shetake and Ors.

Bharat Chaturbhuj Naik Vs Ranoji Chaturbhuj Naik

Smt. Muktabai Vasant Sonavane and Ors. Vs Smt. Hirabai Maruti Sonavane and Ors.

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, through G. S. Agrawal Vs Indraprastha Developers, through Partner, Ujwala Mahendra Shah and Ors.

Kisan Tatyaso Ghadage and Anr. Vs Balasaheb Sambhajirao Ingale and Ors.

Rebecca Girish Pawar Vs Girish Sunderlal Pawar