R.M. Savant JUDGMENT
R.M. Savant, J.
1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.
2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is invoked against the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wadgaon Maval, Pune, by which order the application Exh.21 filed by the Petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit be dismissed as the proper Court Fees have not been paid came to be rejected.
3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details, suffice it to say that the Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein are the original Plaintiffs who have filed the suit in question being RCS No. 130 of 2013. The substantive relief sought in the suit is a declaration that the Development Agreement No. 9272 of 2006 and the Power of Attorney No. 9273 of 2006 dated 14.12.2006 are bogus, illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs. A further declaration that is sought is that the Sale Deed executed by Defendants No. 2 and 3 on behalf of Smt. Ranjanaraje Virdhaval Dabhade by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by her, which Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the Defendants No. 4 and 5 bearing No. 5794 dated 15.09.2009 is bogus, illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs. Hence, a declaration is sought in respect of the Development Agreement and the Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2006 executed by the original owner in favour of Defendants No. 4 and 5, as also declaration is sought in respect of the Sale Deed executed by Defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of the Defendants No. 4 and 5. It is required to be noted that the Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein that is the original Plaintiffs have also filed a suit against the original owner claiming title to the suit property by adverse possession, the said suit is RCS No. 130 of 2013.
4. Having regard to the reliefs sought in the suit, the Defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC on the ground that the suit is not properly valued and that consequentialy proper Court Fees which are required to be paid under Section 6(iv)(ha) have not been paid. The said application as indicated was founded on the reliefs which were sought in the suit. The said application was opposed to on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the defence taken was that the Plaintiffs are not parties to the said Documents and that since Plaintiffs are claiming declaration in respect of the said documents, it would be Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and that would be applicable and the Plaintiffs are not liable to pay Court Fees as per Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Fees Act.
5. The Trial Court considered the said application and has by the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 rejected the said application. The gist of the reasoning of the Trial Court is that the Plaintiffs are not parties to the said documents and nor are claiming ownership in respect of the property. The Trial Court also adverted to the fact that the Plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that the Development Agreement, Power of Attorney and Sale Deed be declared as null and void and not binding upon the Plaintiffs and since the said documents were executed during the pendency of the suit filed by the original owners against the Plaintiffs in the instant suit, the Plaintiffs have properly valued the suit. Hence, the contention of the Defendant No. 4 could not be accepted. The Trial Court accordingly rejected the application by the impugned o........