FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.511/2010 PANGESHWAR SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD V/S SARUBAI SONERAO DHAIGUDE AND ORS 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge J.D. Renapur dated 13.11.2008 below Exh.122 in RCS No.352/1999. 3. The present petitioner is defendant No.4 in RCS No. 352/1999. Petitioner filed an application, copy of which is annexure 'C' on record. This application is filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 in that suit on February 6, 2007. It is contended in this application that, present petitioner had filed written statement in the suit and has made a statement that suit property is purchased by the present petitioner by two sale deeds ; one for Rs.3,39,000/- and another for Rs.3,38,000/-. According to present petitioner, suit property therefore, valued at Rs.6,77,000/-. Suit, therefore, cannot be decided by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. Request is made to allow the application and decide whether suit can be entertained and decided by the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Latur. This application is rejected i.e how the defendant No.4 petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is not in dispute that RCS No.352/1999 is filed by the respondent No.1. Copy of the plaint annexure 'A' shows that Sarubai is the original plaintiff, Ambadas Khape is defendant No.1, Manik Khape is defendant No.2, Prabhu Khape is defendant No.3. Counsel for the petitioner admits that initially these three persons were only defendants in the suit. Present petitioner is subsequently FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ added as defendant No.4. Initially, suit was for declaration and perpetual injunction. That time, present petitioner was not party- defendant. Description of the property which is an agricultural land gat No.515 (old), 970 (new) admeasuring around 13 H and 35 R land. Its assessment is also given. Description, thus, is given in paragraph No.1 of the suit. In paragraph No.8, plaintiff claims that he is owner of the land admeasuring 8 acres 10 gunthas out of land gat No.970. In paragraph No.10, original plaintiff makes a statement that land revenue of the suit property is Rs.5.06 ps. Fourty times of the said land, revenue comes to Rs.202.50 ps. Since there is house in the suit property, plaintiff has valued the house at Rs.10,000/- i.e. how total valuation of the suit property according to the plaintiff is Rs.10,202.50 ps. Plaintiff is claiming half right therefore, valuation of 50% according to plaintiff comes to Rs. 5,101.2/- ps and court fees of Rs.370/- is proper and affixed. 5. Valuation of the property and payment of court fee always depends on the prayer or decree sought by the plaintiff. In the case on hand, section 6 (V) of the Bombay Court fees Act, according to counsel for the petitioner is relevant. 6. I have considered submission of the learned counsel. I have considered the prayers made in the plaint. Valuation which is made by the plaintiff, at this stage is relevant. Plaintiff has filed reply in the trial court. Copy is on record annexure 'D'. Plaintiff has made a statement that defendant No.4 has filed this application only with a view to prolong the mater. What relief plaintiff is seeking is material. In my view, petition is devoid of substance. It’s a old suit needs to be decided by the court in accordance with the provisions of law. Ready reckoner and purchase of the property for more than 6.00 lacs rupees is pleading of the defendant which at this stage is not material. Plaintiff is not seeking a decree for avoidance of two FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ sale deeds and/or there is no decree sought by the plaintiff for quashing and setting aside the sale deeds in favour of the present petitioner. 7. Writ petition is sans merit stands dismissed. No costs. ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) * * * Dt :- 09.02.2010 aaa/511.10