Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2006, challenged an order dated 5/10/2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff claiming his share in plots allotted by CIDCO at villages Cha. The trial court allowed the defendants' application and directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation of the suit at Rs.4000 per sq.mtr and pay one-fourth of the ad valorem court fee within one month. The High Court observed that the trial court passed the order without any evidence or inquiry regarding the market value. The court noted that the valuation of a suit for partition and separate possession is governed by Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which requires the plaintiff to value the suit according to the market value of the share. However, the court must conduct a proper inquiry before directing revaluation. Since the impugned order was passed without any material on record, it was set aside. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to decide the issue of valuation afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Fees - Valuation - Suit for Share - The trial court allowed the defendants' application directing the plaintiff to revalue the suit property at Rs.4000 per sq.mtr and pay one-fourth ad valorem court fees, without any evidence or inquiry. The High Court held that the valuation of a suit for partition and separate possession is governed by Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which requires the plaintiff to value the suit according to the market value of the share. However, the court must conduct a proper inquiry before directing revaluation. The impugned order was set aside as it was passed without any material on record. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was correct in directing the plaintiff to revalue the suit and pay additional court fees based on the market value of the property as per the defendants' application, without proper inquiry or evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 5/10/2010, and directed the trial court to decide the issue of valuation afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Court fee valuation
- Suit for partition and share
- Market value determination
- Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- Section 6(iv)(j)
- Section 11
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Order 7 Rule 11
