Greetings of the day ! Being Advocate and Party to Suit for Partition , Deceleration of Registered Partition dated 27-3-2003 after 10 years, mesne profit of 55L on value of Property more 20 Cr , a Court Fee of 200 is paid. T.I was granted by Trial Court. As one of Defendant, Protest Memo was filed not to extend T.I for not paying Court Fee and Non compliance of order 39 Rule 3, by way of written memo, T.I was extended unconditionally by falsely recording that I had No objections. I had filed Application for correction of wrong entry. Application was filed regarding Maintainability of Suit on Section 6 (5) of Amended Hindu Succession Act that right to daughters is taken away if Registered Partition was prior to 31-12-2004, barred by limitation and huge deficit Court Fees of 14 L. Application was dismissed that precedent of Supreme Court was considered after trial, issue of Court Fees was mixed question of law and facts and Limitation for Suit for Partition is 12 years. Writ Petition was also dismissed . S.L.P is admitted and Trial Court is stayed from passing Judgement .7 Application were pending before Trial Court. One other Application filed under Section 11 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act was to be considered. It was stressed to consider the Application for correction of wrong entry to extend T.I and Application for determining Court Fee as per precedent, It was transferred to other Court when flaw was exposed in not considering the precedent in Application of Maintainability. A complaint was also filed against the Hon'ble Judge and office for wrong entry and wrong evaluation of Court Fee. Memo along with Complaint was filed to Transferred Court. Hon'ble Judge had dismissed Memo . subsequently after recording Advocate has shouted of having No confidence, the case was transferred to another Court. 7 Application were Pending before Hon'ble Judge including Application for determine Court Fee, Correction of wrong entry. Notice was issued to Plaintiffs and Advocate. No argument or objections for one Application was received by Hon'ble Judge. Only Written Arguments was filed before Court. Hon'ble Judge a com dated the Advocate for Plaintiff, draft issue were framed, taken as heard on Application I.A 1 to 8 from Plaintiffs and from my Advocate to consider the Written notes on Application posted for order on I.A'S and issues. Record absence of me and my Advocate on subsequent dates. In between Advocate by name E V for my Tenant who was not on record presence was noted and argument heard from him with out reopening the Case. Order's on 5 Applications was passed, omission of 2 Application for Court Fees and Additional pleading sought by Plaintiffs, absence of other colluding defendants. In Application for confirming T.I , Hon'ble Judge as repeatedly observed that my Advocate roared,spoke harshly, dictated...also my tenant was bound to deposit rent and as he failed to deposit rent, Court directed him to deposit rent till disposal of Suit, I was directed to deposit rent already received from my tenant to date of Suit. In other Application Mandatory Injunction was passed directing my tenant to deposit rent and I should deposit rent from date of Suit. My application for Mandatory Injunction on parity ground for sharing rents of other Defendants was dismissed. Correction of Application for wrong entry was disposed. Application for vacation of T.I was dismissed. 3 Appeals were preferred by me Stay was granted for 2 Weeks. Application for extension of T.I was not listed inspite of Court Memos and Register Memo's. Even Application was not listed . Senior Advocate is appeared .Stay is not extended. My right is deprived. Right of Advocacy's is taken away by wrong recording. Therefore I am of opinion that of following
1. Now , if the court want to create a precedent that a Registered Partitioned Deed can be questioned without paying the court fee on market value but mere Rs.200.Let same rule apply in alll partition cases .
2.if the court want to create new precedent that Mense Profit of Rs.5700000/- can be attached to court by way deposit even before concluding of partition case.Let the same prinicple apply in all partition case .
3. The General prinicples of Precedents of Supreme Court and High Courts can be ignored and not necessarily to be followed in deciding Partition cases.
4. If the court want to create a new precedent for when I am being a Victim of Judges favouritism for which I protest and complian against Judge' s action in Higher Court the subsequents Judges holding me guilty for complianing against fellow Judge and attacking my advocate and me passing orders against the precedents of Supreme Court and High Courts.
In above stated circumstance the court is free to pass any orders and create new precedents according to the whims and fancy of some Judges .
I seek support of my community of Advocates
Regards
SRINIVAS G D
