Petitioners challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction based on suit valuation. The court disposed of the writ petition by keeping all contentions, including valuation, open for the suit hearing.
The writ petition was disposed of keeping the issue of valuation open for the suit hearing.
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.
rlj
wp8107.18
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8107 OF 2018
PADMAJA PANDIT THAKUR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
SAPAN SUSHILKUMAR ZUNZUNWALA
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Dhorde Pramod P.
Advocate for Respondent sole : Mr. Vijay Jagtap
CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 12 DECEMBER 2018
PER COURT:-
Te petitioners have questioned the valuation of the suit filed by
the respondent plaintiff and consequently the pecuniary jurisdiction of
the court of the Civil Judge hearing the suit. Learned counsel for the
petitioners, after arguing the matter for some time, states that the issue
regarding proper/improper valuation be kept open to be urged at the
time of hearing of the suit. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of keeping all contentions of the parties open, including that of
valuation of the suit to be urged at the time of hearing of the suit.
rlj/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding valuation of suit should be decided on merits or kept open.
PADMAJA PANDIT THAKUR AND OTHERS
SAPAN SUSHILKUMAR ZUNZUNWALA
N. M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court