Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MANJU AND OTHERS versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO. XIII, MEERUT & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Manju And Others v. Additional District Judge, Court No. Xiii, Meerut & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 178 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 286 (4 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                     Court No. 54.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2006

Smt. Manju and others..........................Petitioners.

                                        Versus

A.D.J. court no. XIII, Meerut and others..............Respondents.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The order dated 20.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, court no. XIII,  Meerut in misc. appeal no. 20 of 2004 Smt. Manbhari Vs. Smt. Manju is impugned in the instant writ petition. The suit for partition was instituted vide suit no. 234 of 2001.  A preliminary objection was raised in respect of valuation of the court fee.  The trial court decided that valuation of the suit is Rs.2,65,720/- (Rupees two lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred twenty) and since the suit is for partition, therefore, they are entitle to pay court fee of Rs.1,87,146/- (Rupees One lakh eighty seven thousand one hundred forty six).  This order was challenged and the Additional District Judge confirmed the finding on the question of valuation but on the question of court fee held that plaintiffs are entitled to pay only court fee on 2/3 part i.e. only in respect of the claim made in the suit, which is under challenge.  Argument on behalf of the petitioners  is that since they are out of possession, therefore they are not entitled  to pay court fee on the entire valuation.   A copy of the plaint has been annexed as annexure no.1 to the writ petition.  Paragraph no.2 of the plaint clearly states that they are in possession of the disputed house, which is residential house. Paragraph no.6 also states that the defendants are trying to dispossess from their portion, therefore, cause of action arose in the suit.

In the circumstances, argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that they are out of possession, on the face of the plaint stands falsified.  Besides, payment of the court fee is matter between the plaintiffs and the court.  Therefore, I do not find it a fit case for interference.  The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 4.1.2006

rkg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.