SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel
For the Respondent: M.M. Bohra, learned counsel

ORDER

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























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top