Bombay High Court
Tantrik Shikshan Karmachari ... vs Ramesh Natthuji Yemade And 5 ... on 27 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3598.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3598/2014
Tantrik Shikshan Karmachari Gruhnirman
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.,
through its Secretary,
Mr. Krishnarao Tukaramji Mulekar,
age 74 Yrs., R/o Plot No.38,
Ganesh Housing Society,
Shrinagar, Parsodi, Nagpur 440 022. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
1. Ramesh Natthuji Yemade,
R/o Plot No.79, Gorle Layout,
Subhash Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Mr. Dhaniram s/o Rukhan Tembhurne,
Age Major, Occu. Nil.
3. Laxman s/o Chindhbaji Bange,
R/o Plot No.76, Gorle Layout,
Jaytala Road, Nagpur.
4. Madhukarrao Govindrao Pojge,
Age Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Plot No.107, Gorle Layout,
Subhash Nagar, Jaitala Road,
Nagpur.
5. Kamlakar Ramrao Dahake,
R/o Plot No.1, Gorle Layout,
Subhash Nagar, Jaitala Road,
Nagpur.
6. Anantlal Gautam,
R/o Plot No.6, Gorle Layout,
Subhash Nagar, Jaitala Road,
Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.B. Tiwari, Advocate h/f Shri Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ramesh Natthuji Yemade, respondent No.1 in person.
Shri P.S. Lambat, Advocate for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6.
Shri Ranjan Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:18:03 :::
2 wp3598.14
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 27.6.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.B. Tiwari, Advocate h/f Shri Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for the
petitioner, Shri Ramesh Natthuji Yemade, respondent No.1 in person, Shri P.S.
Lambat, Advocate for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 and Shri Ranjan Deshpande,
Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 5.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the trial Court by which the
plaintiff is directed to provide proper valuation of his claim in the suit and to pay the
requisite court fees. The order is passed by the trial Court on an objection raised by
the office.
4. The trial Court has recorded that the plaintiff is liable to pay the court fee as per
Clause 6(v) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, on the market value of the suit plot.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is not required to pay the court fees on
market value and the court fees has to be assessed on the basis of land revenue.
5. The plaintiff has filed about 79 civil suits against different defendants for similar
reliefs. Earlier, Second Appeal No.568/2012 and Second Appeal No.566/2012 are
decided by this Court by the judgment dated 11 th March, 2015 in respect of the
3 wp3598.14
dispute in two civil suits. Same issue fell for consideration in the above referred
second appeals. After considering the relevant provisions and the controversy, this
Court has set aside the order passed by the subordinate Courts and has remitted the
matter to the trial Court for deciding the civil suits again considering the issue of
valuation of the claim of plaintiff along with other issues. The civil suits are pending
before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division.
6. In my view, the petition can be disposed in terms of the judgment passed by this
Court in Second Appeal No.568/2012 and connected matter decided on 11 th March,
2015.
The trial Court is directed to frame issues on the point of valuation of claim of
the plaintiff and the liability of the plaintiff, if any, to pay additional court fees and
these issues shall be tried by the trial Court along with the other issues. The trial
Court shall pass appropriate orders on the above issues at appropriate stage.
The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
