KAUSHALYABAI Vs. SAHEBRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 who is the only original plaintiff waives service. At the joint request the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The respondent no.1 has filed a suit for general partition with a declaration that the sale deed executed by the respondent nos.8 and 9 dated 30/5/2012 be declared as not binding on his share.

(3.) The petitioner who was not originally added as a defendant albeit the respondent no.1 admitted her to be one of the legal heirs of the common ancestor Baburao, was subsequently arrayed as defendant no.10. She filed a Writ Statement cum counter claim apparently without paying sufficient court fees. By moving application (Exh.90) she sought liberty to pay the deficit court fees. Simultaneously by moving another application (Exh.91) she requested for framing couple of issues arising out of pleading in the counter claim. By order dated 1/3/2021 the trial Court rejected both the applications. Hence these 2 separate Writ Petitions.