Bombay High Court
M/S. Samrin Infra Pvt. Ltd vs Kamlakar Babu @ Baburao Patil And ... on 17 April, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 37-wp-5052-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5052 OF 2023
M/s. Samrin Infra Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner
Versus
Kamlakar Babu @ Baburao Patil & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. R. M. Haridas a/w. Tushar Sonawane for Petitioner.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 17 APRIL 2023
PC :
1. The Petitioner who is the original Defendant No.2, has
challenged the order dated 18/01/2023 passed by 3 rd Jt. Civil
Judge, S.D., Thane in R.C.S.No.584 of 2020 rejecting the
Petitioner's application below Exhibit-18. Vide said application, the
Petitioner had sought framing of a preliminary issue of enquiry as
to the valuation of the suit for inadequate court fees under the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act and to initiate an enquiry for revising
the valuation and to determine the correct valuation of the suit
property.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention
Gokhale
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 06:17:13 :::
2 of 4 37-wp-5052-23
to the prayers in the plaint. The first two prayers seek declaration
that the Sale deed dated 15/04/1983 and the development
agreement dated 10/04/2019 be declared as void, illegal, invalid,
non-est and not binding on the plaintiffs. The other reliefs are in
the nature of injunction and other declaration. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner submitted that, U/s.6(iv)(ha) of the said Act, the
Court fees payable is one half of ad valorem fee leviable on the
value of the property. The plaintiffs have valued the suit at
Rs.3000/- only. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my
attention to the impugned order, wherein, it was observed that,
learned Advocate for the Defendants had not pointed out any
reason for framing preliminary issue though the provision U/s.8 of
the Court Fees Act was pointed out. Learned counsel submitted
that the learned Trial Judge has given absolutely no reason as to
why recourse to Section 8 could not have been taken by him. He
also relied on the Judgment of the Single Judge bench of this
Court in the case of Murlibai WD/O Satyanarayan Gupta and
another Vs. Omprakash Satyanarayan Gupta1. In the said
Judgment, in paragraph-4 it was mentioned that, when an
1 1980 Mh.L.J. 86
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 06:17:13 :::
3 of 4 37-wp-5052-23
application is made for enquiry relating to valuation for the
purposes of Court-fees and jurisdictions and if materials on record
prima facie do indicate that valuation set up by the plaintiff
appears to be on the face of it gross undervaluation, a case for an
appropriate enquiry is made out. To even so reject the application
and refuse an inquiry would be almost equivalent to denial of
justice and in a given case may even result in assumption of
jurisdiction not otherwise vested in the trial Court.
3. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear the
original Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of ad-
interim relief.
4. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) Issue Notice to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who
are the contesting Respondents, returnable on
10/08/2023.
4 of 4 37-wp-5052-23
ii) Till then, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms
of prayer clause (c).
iii) Stand over to 10/08/2023.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
