Writ petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking to treat the issue of court fees as a preliminary matter. The High Court dismissed the petition upholding the lower court's exercise of discretion.
The writ petition challenging the lower court's order was dismissed. No order as to 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 -
WP 9866/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9866/2014
Ravi Kailas Keswani & others.
...Petitioners..
Versus
Ramsing Munsising Chitodiya & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri P.D. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Respondent nos.3 & 4 served.
.....
CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATE: 20.04.2017
ORDER :
1]This petition challenges the order dated 31.7.2014
passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jalgaon.
By the impugned order, the petitioners' application that
the issue of Court fees be tried as a preliminary issue
was rejected.
2]The impugned order records the fact that the issues
have been framed on 27.7.2012 and one of the issues was
with regard to the Court fees payable. It was after the
issues were framed that on 12.3.2013 the petitioners
WP 9866/14
- 2 -
filed an application stating that there is a short
payment of Court fees and the plaintiffs – respondents
herein be directed to pay the full Court fees on the
plaint filed. Thereafter, on 22.11.2013 the petitioners
filed another application seeking that the issue of
appropriate payment of Court fees be tried as a
preliminary issue.
3]So far as the first application made on 12.3.2013
seeking a direction that the respondents be directed to
pay full Court fees was concerned, the same could not
have been disposed of in favour of the petitioners as
this very issue of appropriate payment of Court fees was
one of the issues framed on 27.2.2012. This itself is an
evidence of the fact that appropriate payment of Court
fees was a disputable issue and for that reason, specific
issue had been framed. So far as second application of
treating the issue of Court fees as a preliminary issue
is concerned, the impugned order in the facts of the case
places reliance on Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and holding that all the issues could be
decided together.
4]The impugned order, in the facts, is reasonable
WP 9866/14
exercise of jurisdiction vested in Court and in terms of
Order XIV Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It
does not call for interference by this Court, in the
given facts, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5]Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
ndk/ c2041710.doc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 with the lower court's refusal to treat the issue of court fees as a preliminary matter.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Kailas Keswani & others.
Ramsing Munsising Chitodiya & others.
M.S. SANKLECHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court