DEEPA SHASHIKANT GODAMBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the petitioner is entitled to avail of the benefit of the notification dated October 1, 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 46 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 ("act", for short) with a view to promote the welfare of the women, is a short question, which falls for my consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE notification dated October 1, 1994 reads as follows :

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the present suit is filed in a Civil Court by a woman litigant and it pertains to a property dispute. The trial Court has, however, declined to grant exemption on the ground that the present suit, which is a suit for specific performance, is not covered by the First and the Second Schedules of the Act. In my opinion, the trial Court is wrong in taking this view, because the suit for specific performance is clearly covered by Article 7 of the First Schedule. The First and the Second Schedules of the Act determine the method of assessment of fee. Schedule I contains as many as seven articles. I am not concerned with Articles 1 to 6, but Article 7, which is a residuary article reads as follows : any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss, including cases wherein application or petition is either treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as aforesaid. Now a suit for specific performance is clearly a suit to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of money and as such covered by this residuary article. The petitioner is thus entitled to the exemption. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to accept the plaint without payment of Court fees. Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.