Prabhakar Shamrao Patil vs Gunwant Baksu Pimpale
2017 Latest Caselaw 5157 Bom

                                                                 WP/7209/2016
                                       1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 7209 OF 2016

 Prabhakar Shamrao Patil,
 Age 50 years, Occ. Business
 R/o Plot No.11, Gut No.18,
 Shriratna Colony, Pimprala,
 Jalgaon.                                         ..Petitioner

 Versus

 Gunwant Baksu Pimpale
 Age 65 yeas, Occ. Retired,
 R/o Near Shri Swami Samarth
 Mandir, Partur, Dist. Jalna.                     ..Respondent

                                   ...
           Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Patil Vinod Prakash 
             Advocate for Respondents : Shri Bolkar Y.B.
                                   ...
                 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: July 27, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2016,

WP/7209/2016

delivered by the trial Court, by which, application Exhibit 35

seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC

has been rejected on the ground that the recording of evidence

has already commenced and Exhibit 35 has been filed belatedly.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned

Advocates for the respective sides.

6. The record reveals that the valuation of the property on

the date of the lodging of the suit was around Rs.7,92,278/-. A

valuation report in 2015 is produced by the petitioner indicating

the market value of the land is Rs. 15,78,278/-. It is on the basis

of this report that the defendant has prayed for the dismissal /

rejection of the suit.

7. It cannot be debated that the Court fees to be paid by the

plaintiff would be dependent upon the valuation of the property

as on the date of the lodging of the suit. Merely because the

escalation / appreciation of the valuation of the property has

occurred, would not mean that the suit was under valued and

lesser Court fees were paid. Nevertheless, the trial Court has

framed an issue as to whether the suit would be maintainable in

the light of such objections of the defendants. It is informed that

WP/7209/2016

the plaintiff has concluded the recording of oral evidence and it

is for the defendant to step into the witness box.

8. Considering above, I do not find that the impugned order

could be termed as being perverse or erroneous.

9. This petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

10. Needless to state the trial Court shall note that the

additional issue framed in so far as valuation of the property and

payment of court fees is concerned, it shall deal with the said

issue by keeping in view the valuation of the property on the

date of the lodging of the suit and not the current valuation.

11. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d