1 wp4544.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4544 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent. 1. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed present petition challenging the order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal below Exhibit-17 in Regular Civil Suit No. 116 of 2009. The said application at Exhibit-17 filed by the respondent- defendant seeking direction to plaintiff to correct valuation has been allowed by the trial Court. 2. Advocate Mr. Kulkarni for petitioner contends that the correct form of plaint or any alleged defect in its drafting is not relevant and prayer clause therein is relevant for adjudicating the court fees. He invites attention to prayer clause in plaint to show that only effort is to protect possession and nothing more. 2 wp4544.10 3. Advocate Mr. Dhorde points out that the said possession is claimed to be in part performance of agreement dated 15.09.2003. He therefore argued that the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is clearly applicable. 4. After hearing respective counsel I find that the trial Court has rightly applied its mind. The prayer clause `B' is specific and it makes a reference to the agreement and rights flowing therefrom. The effort is to protect possession which is handed over allegedly in terms of said agreement dated 15.09.2003. The direction given by trial Court therefore can not be said to be either erroneous or perverse. Valuation as done in the plaint under Section 6(iv)(j) is not proper as clause `j' is residuary and operates whenever there is no other provision. 5. In the circumstances, the Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 15.02.2011 gas/wp4544.10