payment of court fee = by valuing the Suit notionally, without valuing each schedule of the property, for which declaration was sought.- the Suit was returned with certain objections that the Suit shall be valued for each schedule and Court fee shall be paid separately, it is made clear that, if the petitioners seek to amend the prayer and resubmit the Suit, liberty is given to them to do so.


              
  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY     

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.67 OF 2013


ORDER:
         
This Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 17.10.2012, passed in O.S.(S.R.).No.6187  of 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 
The petitioners are plaintiffs in the Suit.  The said Suit was filed, 
seeking to declare the petitioners as legal heirs of deceased Late Mohd. Ibrahim and Smt. Akthari Begum, in respect of suit schedule “A” and “B” properties, which are open plots admeasuring 310 Square Yards and 347 Square Yards respectively, situated in Survey Nos.39 and 44 of Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by valuing the Suit notionally, without valuing each schedule of the property, for which declaration was sought.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inasmuch as the petitioners are only seeking declaration as legal heirs, they need not pay the Court fee on the value of the property. 
The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioners/plaintiffs are seeking declaration with reference to schedule “A” and “B” properties in the Suit. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the docket order passed by the Court below.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  However, as it is stated that the Suit was returned with certain objections that the Suit shall be valued for each schedule and Court fee shall be paid separately, it is made clear that, if the petitioners seek to amend the prayer and resubmit the Suit, liberty is given to them to do so.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand closed. No Costs.


_______________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
21st January, 2013
KKM/MD





































                    

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY















CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.67 OF 2013



21st  January, 2013




kkm/md








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.