JYOTI S DOSHI Vs. HINDUSTAN HOSIERY MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff herein, a woman litigant, has filed this summary suit for recovering the amount advanced by way of a loan to the defendant company. The plaintiff has sought a decree for the sum of Rs. 1,06,375/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal claim of Rs. 70,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization. The plaintiff has not paid any Court fee on the plaint and it is averred in para 12 of the plaint as follows :-

(2.) THE suit was duly numbered without payment of Court fees. After service of the Writ of Summons on the defendant, appearance was filed on their behalf. Hence summons for judgment has been taken out by the plaintiff. Thereafter the matter came up before my brother Lodha, J. , on 9th February 2000. During the course of the hearing before the learned Judge, objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that this suit is essentially concerning a commercial transaction and the notification would not apply to it. Thus, as recorded by the learned Judge in his order passed on that date, during the course of the argument the question cropped up as to whether the plaintiff is exempted from payment of Court fees under the Notification dated 1st October 1994 with respect to the summary suit filed by her under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge was of the view that to appreciate the question in its right perspective, it would be desirable that the Advocate General is also heard. Accordingly he directed a notice to be issued to the Advocate General for his appearance on the next date.

(3.) DURING the course of the hearing before my brother Lodha, J. , an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government by one Shri P. G. Chhatre. Under Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Forest Department affirmed on 1st March, 2000. In that affidavit, the Under Secretary made a reference to the policy for women framed by the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1994. Thereafter in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the officer stated as follows :-