Bhaurao S/O Tukaram Ambatkar vs Mr. Subhash Kailashchandra ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1356 Bom

                                                                            wp6311.14
                                           1




                                                                         
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                 
                          WRIT PETITION    No. 6311 OF 2014




                                                
    Bhaurao s/o Tukaram Ambatkar,
    aged about 68 years,
    Occupation : Agriculturist,




                                         
    r/o Village Karanji, Tq. Kelapur,
    Distt. Yavatmal.                                 .... PETITIONER.
                               
                              VERSUS
                              
    1. Subhash Kailashchandra Chandak Maheshwari,
       aged about 51 years,
       Occupation : Agriculturist.
      


    2. Smt. Savitridevi wd/o Kailashchandra Chandak Maheshwari
                       (DELETED)
   



    3. Ms. Sucheta d/o Kailashchandra Chandak Maheshwari
       aged about 38 years,    Occupation : Agriculturist.
       Nos. 1 & 3 r/o Agra,





       165, North Vijay Nagar, Daresi No.2,
       Agra (U.P).

        Second address :
        r/o Deoli, Distt. Wardha (M.S.).





    4. Rikab Kantilal Mutha,
       aged about 35 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
       r/o Pandharkawada Town, Tq. Kelapur,
       Distt. Yavatmal.

    5. Amit Kantilal Mutha,
       aged 30 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
       r/o Pandharkawada Town, Tq. Kelapur,
       Distt. Yavatmal.                           ....  RESPONDENTS.




      ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:07 :::
                                                                                  wp6311.14
                                               2




                                                                              
    Shri Amol Mardikar Advocate for the Petitioners.
    Shri S.Y. Deopujari Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5.




                                                      
                                        .....


                                          CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 07.04.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of parties.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application

filed by him under Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, has

been erroneously rejected by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge,

Jr.Dn., Kelapur, on 24.9.2014.

3. According to the petitioner, the valuation of the suit

was much more than the valuation determined by the trial Court,

which fact made the suit so out of pecuniary jurisdiction of the

learned Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the valuation should have been done in accordance with Section

6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act because the suit was for

declaration and injunction as held in the case of Pushparaj

wp6311.14

Surajprasad Modh vs. Sayyad Altaf Sayyad Wazir & ors.

reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 492.

4. Section 6(iv)(d) relates to computation of Court Fees

and it indicates that the Court fees will have to be determined in

accordance with the valuation of the suit. Therefore, Rule 2 of the

Maharashtra Suits Valuation (Determination of Value of Land for

Jurisdictional Purposes) Rules, 1983 would be relevant. This view

has also been taken in the case of Pushparaj, supra, relied upon

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even in the case of

Manju vs. Minakshi reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 706 the

learned Single Judge of this Court has not taken a different view.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, one can see that

the learned Civil Judge has computed the Court Fees in

accordance with Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

The learned Civil Judge has taken recourse to Rule 2 of the

Maharashtra Suits Valuation Rule, 1983 and determined the

valuation of Rs.3800, which is a sum equivalent to 200 times of

assessment of the land which is of Rs.19.00. The learned civil

Judge has rightly carried out the whole exercise and I see neither

any illegality nor perversity in the finding recorded by learned

wp6311.14

Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Kelapur. There is no substance in the writ

petition.

6. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No

costs.

JUDGE

/TA/