Dismissed¶21

Krishna Baburao (Babu) Havaldar v. Balasaheb Aandrao Bhosale and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2025CRA/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Civil Revision Application No. 50 of 2024; Krishna Baburao (Babu) Havaldar v. Balasaheb Aandrao Bhosale & Ors; rejection of plaint; improper valuation of suit claim; deficit court fees; partition suit; Gat No. 429; Civil Judge Senior Division Kolhapur; orders dated 04-07-2022 and 18-09-2023; valuation objection to be decided at final adjudication; N. J. Jamadar, J.; decided 20 March 2025; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The suit is primarily for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in Gat No. 429; therefore the learned Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the application for rejection of the Plaint. ¶20

Krishna Baburao (Babu) Havaldar vs Balasaheb Aandrao Bhosale and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

5-CRA-50-2024.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2024

¶5

Krishna Baburao (Babu) Havaldar ..Applicant Versus Balasaheb Aandrao Bhosale & Ors …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sandeep Korgave, for the Applicant.

¶7

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 20^th MARCH 2025

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶10

The challenge in this Application is to an Order dated 18^th September 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, whereby an application preferred by the applicant for rejection of the Plaint, as the suit claim has not been properly valued came to be rejected.

¶11

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶12

Digitally signed byARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.03.21 11:55:15 +0530

¶13

The applicant had initially preferred an application for rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the suit claim has not been properly valued and the Plaintiff be directed to correct the valuation and pay the deficit Court fees.

¶14

By an Order dated 4^th July 2022, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the Application observing, inter alia, that the Suit

¶15

1/2

¶16

5-CRA-50-2024.DOC

¶17

was instituted for partition and the Plaintiff seems to have correctly valued the suit claim and paid the Court fees.

¶18

I have perused the averments in the Plaint. Primarily the Suit is for partition and separate possession of the Plaintiff’s share in Gat No. 429.

¶19

Mr. Koregave, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that in order to bring the Suit within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, the Plaintiff has included other properties but Court fees is paid only in respect of the claim for partition.

¶20

Primarily, the Suit is for partition of the land bearing Gat No. 429. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the Application. In any event, if the defendant has raised an objection regarding the incorrect valuation of the Suit claim, the said issue can be heard and decided along with other issues at the stage of final adjudication of the Suit.

¶21

Subject to the abovesaid clarifications, the Application stands dismissed.

¶22

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶23

2/2

Krishna Baburao (Babu) Havaldar v. Balasaheb Aandrao Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Baburao (Babu) Havaldar v. Balasaheb Aandrao Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Kashinath Pichad (Deceased) Thr. His Lr N. B. Pichad vs Mahendrakumar Nama Gangurde and Ors.

Shankar Dinkar Chavan (Since Deceased through Legal Lrs ) vs Pandurang Shivram Chavan and Ors.

Ramprabhu Gopinath Kapse vs Shevanatabai Baburao Kapse

Chitra Eknath Thakur vs Special Land Aqcusition Officer and Ors.

Savita Alias Kunda Kisan Kurle and Ors. vs Ladaku Palo Godambe (Decd) Thr Lrs and Ors.

Manju Vinit Gadgil and Anr. vs Shubhada Ramkrishna Gadgil, and Ors.