PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar – Respondent
Prakash Shrivastava, J.—This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of plaintiff in the suit challenging the order of trial court dated 13/2/2013 requiring the petitioner to pay the advalorem court fee on the value of the suit property disclosed in the sale deed.
2. In brief, the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and injunction in which the respondent had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and trial court while deciding the said application has directed the petitioner to pay the advalorem court fee.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an error in directing the petitioner to pay the advalorem court fee ignoring that petitioner is not a party to the sale deed.
4. As against this learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noted that petitioner has pleaded in the plaint that suit property being house No. 53 situated at Shastri Marg Sailana District Ratlam is ancestral property and that it was received by petitioner in partition and he is in possession of the same and is residing
Ajay Pratap Singh v. Kuldeep Singh’s 2013(2) MPLJ 602.
Government of Orissa v. Ashok Transport Agency
Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash
Santosh Chandra v. Gyan Sunder Bai
Smt. Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum
Suhrdi Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh
Sunil S/o Dev Kumar Radhelia v. Awadh Narayan 2010 (4) MPLJ 431.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.