Guidelines of Bombay High court about proper scrutiny of suit by civil judge

 I
deem it appropriate to direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court to place a copy of this order before each learned
Principal District Judge in this State so as to bring to the notice
of each Judicial Officer under the respective Judicial district that
a proper scrutiny of the suit shall be performed by the concerned
office of the Courts and in the event of a sketch map being
required to be annexed to the plaints, depending upon the cause
of action in due deference to Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, the
trial Court shall place such suits in objection category and shall
not proceed with the said suits, until there is a proper

compliance of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC to avoid further
complications as are visible in the judgments cited in this
proceeding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2018

DATTATRAYA KASHINATH MANDEKAR Vs CHANGDEO DAGDU KHULE AND OTHERS

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: February 15 2018
Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 584

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for plaintiff to give full description of suit property?

No care was taken by the Plaintiff to cure the

defect of wrong valuation and vagueness
in description of
the suit property despite the fact that specific written objections
were taken by the defendant. The Plaintiff could have valued
the Suit separately for the purposes of the Court fees and
jurisdiction of the Court as contemplated under the
Suit
Valuation Act and mentioning the relevant provision of the
Bombay Court fees Act. Valuation for the purposes of the Court

fees and for the purposes of the jurisdiction may also be the

same. But when the plaintiff in substance wanted to claim the
declaration as to the right , title as Owner of the immovable
residential property situated at Matunga, prime area in City of
Mumbai capable being valued in terms of money preferably by

the Government ready reckoner price and was duty bound to
state the market price of the property by reasonably estimating
the suit for the purposes of valuation of the Suit and for
jurisdiction of the Court and ought to have made payment of
ad valorem court fees stating the relevant provisions briefly for
benefit of the ministerial officer of the Court for to file the
plaint. . This was not done even till plaint was rejected by the
Court and not even till this appellate stage. The plaintiff must
be vigilant to give description of the immovable suit property
with its full description including boundaries thereof as
required in Order 7 rule 3 of the civil procedure code, as
amended in state of Maharashtra and cannot suppress the

market value of the Suit property from the court, as required to

be stated for the purposes of valuation of the suit for the
purpose of jurisdiction of the court as also for payment of the
Court fees. 

APPELLATE SIDE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

FIRST APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013

Kishorbhai Premchand Shah  V  HIRJI BHOJRAJ & SONS

CORAM:-A. P. BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 2/9/2013
Citation;2014(2) MHLJ187 Bom

Print Page