GULAM JILANI Vs. GULAM DASTAGIR AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-57
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: INDORE)
Decided on March 07,2018

Gulam Jilani Appellant
VERSUS
Gulam Dastagir And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.05.2017 and 29.07.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.61A/2017 by the VIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore; whereby vide order dated 04.05.2017 the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been partly allowed which relates to the payment of proper court fees and vide order dated 29.07.2017 the learned Judge of the Trial Court, on an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment in the plaint mainly in the relief clause has directed to the petitioner to pay the court fees in respect of the property on the basis of guideline value holding that the petitioner needs to first amend the value of the plaint on the basis of Government guidelines of the disputed property and then to pay the requisite court fees then only he can be allowed to proceed further.
(2.) Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed this Civil Suit in respect of his ancestral property wherein he had sought relief that he is entitled to 1/5 share of the property as delineated in the plaint and that the petitioner is also entitled to claim 29.50% share in the disputed property. It is further submitted by the counsel that the petitioner has properly paid the court fees on the basis of the purchase value of the property as the father of the petitioner had obtained the lease deed of the disputed property bearing plot No.C- 23 at Scheme No.54 , Sector-'C' in the year 1979 for a sum of Rs.18000/- only.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the impugned order learned Judge has not taken note of the fact that the petitioner and respondents are the members of the same family and as the father of the petitioner had obtained a lease in respect of the disputed property and the suit was filed under S.7(4) (c)of the Court Fees Act , 1870. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although there was no occasion for the Judge of the Trial Court to pass the order in respect of the court fees and valuation. It is further submitted that in fact the court fees is liable to be paid on the basis of the valuation made by the petitioner in the plaint being the dominus litus of the plaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.