ORDER :- Both these Writ Petitions are in fact counter to each other and are filed by original plaintiff as also original defendants challenging the order dated 18-8-2004 by which the learned trial Court has upheld the objection regarding valuation of suit taken by original defendant and has directed the plaintiff to value his suit at Rs. 2,50,000/- by holding that the suit falls under Section 6(iv) (ha) of Bombay Court- Fees Act. In Writ Petition No. 4167 of 2004 the plaintiff contends that his suit falls under residuary clause i.e. Section 6 (iv)(j) and Court-fees of Rs. 200/- paid by him by valuing the suit at Rs.1,000/- is just and proper.

In Writ Petition No. 4505 of 2004 the defendant contends that the suit ought to have been valued at Rs. 28,50,000/- or in any case at Rs. 6,00,000/- and as it is multi- farious suit contemplated by Section 18 of the Bombay Court-Fees Act. Court should have directed payment of Court-fees in relation to both the reliefs claimed by the original plaintiffs. In alternative the defendant has prayed for direction to the trial Court to carry out inquiry into valuation of the suit property and to direct the plaintiff to pay Court fees in accordance with valuation arrived at in such inquiry.

2. As the petitions are counter-petitions, this Court has admitted the petitions and hearing was expedited.

However, in Writ Petition No. 4167 of 2004 stay of impugned order of trial court was granted. After hearing the Advocate for defendant who opposed initially the prayer for stay of the proceedings itself. Later on the defendant has filed civil application for stay of the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit and a separate civil application for grant of early hearing by fixed date. Both the counsel agreed to submit list of their citations and for final decision of the matter as the plaintiff as also defendant have got urgency in it. As the issue involved is small, the matter has been heard finally.

3. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration that agreement for development dated 28-3-1997 executed by defendant No.1 Niranjan in favour of defendant No. 3 Ramratan (Petitioner in W. P. 4505/2004) is void and not binding upon him. The plaintiff has also sought perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with or disturbing his possession. The plaintiff has stated that he has entered into an agreement of sale dated 7th March, 2003 for Rs.1,30,000/- with defendant No.1. He states that he has paid an amount of Rs. 24,000/- towards part payment and was given possession on 10th July, 2002. He states that defendant No. 1 permitted him to affix a gate and accordingly after affixing gate he has also put his lock on it. He states that the sale deed was to be executed in the month of January, 2003. He further states that an agreement of sale for Rs.1,30,000/- was executed on 7th March, 2003 and on that date he has paid entire amount of consideration to the owner and its receipt is acknowledged by the owner. He states that thereafter some differences cropped up between him and defendant No.1 and, therefore, defendant No.1 executed some documents in favour of defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 3 is trying to take forcible possession of the suit plot from him. It is stated by him that the agreement for development executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No. 3 is dated 20th March, 1997 and is not legally valid and also a void document. He has stated that cause of action arose on 10-3-2003 when defendant No. 3 lodged false complaint against him. The suit has been valued at Rs.1,000/- and Court- fees of Rs. 200/- has been paid upon it.

4. The defendant No.1 filed application under Sections 8 and 9 of Bombay Court- Fees Act and has stated that the subject- matter of the suit is 1500 sq. ft. of land with construction upon it and its value is more than Rs. 4,50,000/- while value of construction is above Rs.1,50,000/-. He has further stated that price of land as fixed by Government of Maharashtra is Rs. 3,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document