High Court dismissed a civil revision application challenging an order staying amendment of pleadings. The court held the suit for declaration was not susceptible to monetary evaluation and did not attract Section 6(v) court fees.
Application failed and was dismissed as the impugned order was correctly passed.
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.
CRA123_16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2016
Bhavarlal Durgalal Lohar and others … Applicants Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain and others … Respondents
Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b. Mr. Mahendra Shingade for Applicants. Mr. Onkar Gupte for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 17, 2016
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Bapat, learned Counsel for applicants and Mr. Gupte, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 at length.
1/7
CRA123_16.sxw
was also clarified that if the plaintiff fails to comply that order within 10 days, the plaint shall stand rejected as per Order VII, Rule 11(b) of C.P.C.
2/7
CRA123_16.sxw
of Civil Judge, Junior Division will have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit.
3/7
CRA123_16.sxw
one car parking on the ground floor in the new building to be constructed by the defendants No.1 to 8 on the said plot free of cost on ownership basis in lieu of which the plaintiff was to offer the quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of shop No.3 to defendants No.1 to 8 and permit them to redevelop the said plot by demolishing the said building and constructing a new building on the said plot. In other words, he submitted that plaintiff has rightly valued the Suit under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act and the submission advanced on behalf of the defendants that plaintiff is liable to value the Suit under Section 6(v) of the Act is wholly misconceived.
“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and /or declare that the Defendants have illegally, fraudulently and dishonestly demolished the said Shop;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and / or declare that the Defendants Nos.1 to 8 have committed a breach of the oral agreement entered by them with the Plaintiff on or about 23rd September 2015 for allotting him the said Premise in the new building in lieu of the Plaintiff permitting the Defendant Nos.1 to 8 to redevelop the said Plot and handing over the vacant possession of the said Shop to the Defendant Nos.1 to 8;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and / or decree the Defendant Nos.1 to 8 jointly and / or severally to re-construct a new Shop similar to the said Shop at its original location;
(d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and / or direct the Defendant No.9 to revoke the Commencement Certificate dated 21st October 2015 granted by the Defendant No.9 to Defendant Nos.1 to 4;
(e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased by a mandatory
4/7
CRA123_16.sxw
injunction order the defendant Nos.1 to 8 not to re-develop the said Plot.”
5/7
CRA123_16.sxw
Apartments ( supra ). In that case, plaintiff came with the case that the defendants had agreed to purchase 37 flats from the plaintiff. An agreement to that effect was entered into on 26.07.2008. Plaintiff came with the case that defendant assured that he would pay the balance price and on such assurance, according to the plaintiff, he handed over possession of the flat on humanitarian grounds. In spite of handing over possession, the defendant did not pay the balance amount. The plaintiff, therefore, issued notices to the defendant calling upon them to pay the balance amount. As they did not pay the balance amount, he terminated the agreement and thereafter instituted Suit for declaration that plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract; for declaration that defendant is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract; for declaration that plaintiff rightly terminated the agreement and for possession of the suit flat. It is in that context, this Court observed that as the plaintiff is claiming possession of the suit flat, he has to pay the court fee as per Section 6(v) of the Act. In my opinion, the said decision is not applicable as plaintiff has not sought possession of the premises.
6/7
CRA123_16.sxw
contrary to the undertaking and consent dated 08.05.2007 given in favour of the plaintiff, this Court held that in substance, the Suit is for specific performance. In my opinion, this decision is also not applicable to the present case.
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Minal Parab
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for declaration and specific performance is susceptible to monetary evaluation for court fee purposes.
Whether Section 6(v) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act applies when possession is not sought.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
I. A. Apartments Vs. RamniklalDistinguished¶41
_I. A. Apartments Vs. Ramniklal_, 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 99 · Who else cites this
Nagin Mansukhlal Vs. Haribhai ManibhaiDistinguished¶42
_Nagin Mansukhlal Vs. Haribhai Manibhai,_ 1979 Bom.C.R.348 · Who else cites this
Nilima S. Navalkar Vs. Nipun I.ThakkarDistinguished¶43
_Nilima S. Navalkar Vs. Nipun I.Thakkar_ , 2010(2) Bom.C.R. 110 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhavarlal Durgalal Lohar and others
Dinesh Kumar Jain and others
R. G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
