Prakash S/O Mohanlal Shroti And Another v. Smt. Asha W/O Rameshwar Sharma And Others
4-CAO-2182-19 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.2182 OF 2019 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.22116 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8537 OF 2018 (D) Prakash s/o Mohanlal Shroti, Rukmini Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Amravati and anr. -vsAsha w/o Rameshwar Sharma, Anup Nagar, Indore (MP) and ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri A. M. Sudame, Advocate for applicants.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
DATE : November 18, 2021 Heard.
There is no appearance on behalf of the non-applicants. Considering reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing review application is condoned.
Civil Application is disposed of.
Misc. Civil Application St. No.22116 of 2019 Despite notice there is no appearance on behalf of the non-applicant No.1.
In Writ Petition No.8537/2018 an order passed below Exhibit-38 by the trial Court raising a grievance that the plaintiff had failed to comply with an earlier order dated 23/04/2018 in the matter of payment of deficit Court fees came to be challenged. The trial Court had rejected the application at Exhibit-38 after observing that the plaintiff had deposited the Court fees as directed by the order passed below Exhibit-15.
4-CAO-2182-19 2/2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in paragraph 3 of the order passed in Writ Petition No.8537/2018 it has been observed that even if the contentions of the present applicant as raised in Exhibit-38 were to be upheld, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) would continue to have pecuniary jurisdiction. It is submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court is up to Rs.5 lakhs. According to the applicants on a proper valuation of the claim, the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) would be ousted since pecuniary value involved is more than Rs.5 lakhs. As per the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition the trial Court had been directed to frame an issue with regard to proper valuation of the suit and the amount of Court fees payable by the plaintiff.
It is clarified that after conducting such exercise, if the Court finds that the claim that was made in the plaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the trial Court will be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to enable presentation of the plaint in the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. With this clarification the Misc. Civil Application is disposed of.