Civil Revision Application No. 41 of 2011. Case: Smt. Sushila Uttamchand Jain Vs Rajesh Kumar Prakashchand Jain. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision Application No. 41 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Applicant: Rajesh Kocheta i/b Amol Mhatre, Adv. |
| Judges | D. G. Karnik, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Court-fees Act (36 of 1959) - Section 6(5); Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) - Section 6 |
| Citation | AIR 2012 Bom 22 |
| Judgement Date | June 10, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
This revision application is directed against the order dated 25th October, 2010 deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction against the original plaintiff (defendant in the counter-claim).
-
The revision applicant (for short "the applicant") is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The applicant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Bhiwandi for an injunction simpliciter restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession and/or dispossessing the applicant from flat No. 13 situated on the 3rd floor in house No. 365, Mahavir Sadan, Gokul Nagar, Bhiwandi, Thane (for short "the suit flat").
-
The case of the applicant is that she was the owner of the suit flat and had agreed to sell the same to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. According to her, the respondent did not pay the agreed consideration. The applicant had not handed over the possession of the suit flat to the respondent but the respondent threatened to take possession by force and, therefore, the applicant had filed the suit for injunction. The respondent filed the written statement contesting the suit and contended that he had paid the full consideration and the applicant had put the respondent in possession of the suit flat as an owner. The name of the respondent was also registered as a consumer with the Electricity Board and he was paying the electricity charges. However, on 11th March, 2010, the applicant by concealing material facts from the trial Court obtained an ex parte order of status quo, broke open the lock of the respondent and illegally and forcibly dispossessed the respondent. The respondent, therefore, by his written statement made a counter-claim for restoration of possession. The applicant filed the written statement to the counter-claim made by the respondent denying the allegations made in the counter-claim. He further contended that since the value of the flat was beyond the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim. Accordingly the trial Court framed a preliminary issue as to its jurisdiction but held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim.
-
Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the averments made in the written statement contained in the counter-claim and in particular para 2(y) thereof and submitted that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial