PRAKASH YASHVANT PATIL Vs. MANISHA DINKAR HANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This Court on 21/04/2015 had issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 28/04/2015. It was directed that notice to indicate that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. On 30/04/2015, there is appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 who is contesting respondent is duly served.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have perused the necessary annextures and impugned order. The petitioner - original plaintiff challenges by this petition an order dated 31/03/2015 passed by the the trial Court directing the plaintiff to deposit full court fees as per market value of the suit property as applicable on the date of the institution of the suit. An application was made by defendant no.1 under sec. 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'). According to defendant no.1 the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under the law as Civil Judge, Junior Division has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit as the suit is not properly valued and suffering from defect of deficit court fees. According to the defendant no.1, the value of the suit property is more than Rs. 5 lakhs and he has produced on record valuation made by the Sub- Registrar to be Rs. 9,91,777.00

(3.) Say and reply was filed by the petitioner -original plaintiff that the substantive relief claimed in the suit is for declaration that conveyance deed dated 22/05/2006, agreement for sale dated 07/10/2004 and affidavit dated 02/09/2005 have been duly cancelled. Further declaration is sought that transfer order dated 22/05/2006 issued by defendant no.2 is void and illegal and bad in law. The prayer clause 20(c) in the plaint sought direction to the defendant no.1 to quit and vacate the suit property immediately and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner prayer clause 20(c) only claimed ancillary relief.