Megha 15_wp_3880_2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3880 OF 2016 Samabi Shaikh mohd. Hussain Shaikh and Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Raghunandan Co-op. Housing Society and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Amey Deshpande with Ms. Vandana Bait and Mr. Harsh Nishar for the Petitioners. Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat for Respondent No.1. Mr. Pawan Tiwari for Respondent No.3. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent -State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 27 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged order dated 15 February 2016 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, allowing applications at Exhibits-251, 263 and 267 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for rejection of the Plaint on account of non-payment of proper court fees. 2) It appears that rejection of the Plaint was also sought on the ground of limitation. However, the Court held that proper court fees are Page No. 1 of 4 27 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:35289 Megha 15_wp_3880_2016 not paid by the Plaintiffs and therefore the Trial Court granted opportunity to the Plaintiffs to correct the valuation and to pay proper court fees. 3) I have heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Kankal, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 4) The Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs, who all are women for the purpose of exercising their rights in respect of ancestral property. The Suit seeks declaration that Release Deed executed on 26 June 1989 is illegal and ab initio void and not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that alienation made by some of the Defendants does not bind their shares. The Plaintiffs have also sought partition of the suit properties. Defendant Nos.7 and 36 filed Application seeking rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on which impugned order dated 15 February 2016 is passed. 5) It appears that by notification dated 1 October 1994 issued under the provisions of Section 46 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 the State Government remitted fees payable by women litigant on plaints, applications, petitions, memoranda of appeals or any other documents to be filed in any civil, family or criminal court in respect of cases relating to maintenance, property disputes, violence and divorce. At the Page No. 2 of 4 27 August 2026 Megha 15_wp_3880_2016 time when the Regular Civil Suit No. 571 of 1998 was filed, notification dated 1 October 1994 in its original form was operational. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were exempted from paying any court fees on the Suit filed for partition of the ancestral properties. By further notification dated 23 March 2000, notification dated 1 October 1994 was amended and the expression ‘property disputes’ was clarified to mean only ‘disputes arising out and concerning matrimonial matters’. Thus, exemption from payment of court fees on Plaint, Suits for partition and declaration relating to ancestral property was withdrawn by notification dated 23 March 2000. However, the notification dated 23 March 2000 is inapplicable to the present case since the Suit was filed in the year 1998. In my view, therefore, the Plaintiffs were not liable to pay any court fees in the Suit in view of the notification dated 1 October 1994. In Jyoti S. Doshi V/s. M/s. Hindustan Hosiery Mills 1 this Court has clarified as under:- 19. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the women litigants as well as the Counsel for the defendants as also by the Advocate General. (i) As far as the two issues which have been framed by me are concerned, my answer on Issue No. 2 will be that the Notification dated 23rd March 2000 will not restrict and/or govern and/or control the exemption granted by the earlier Notification of 1st October, 1994 with regard to payment of Court fees to women litigants provided those are suits filed by women litigants in their personal capacity. The suits filed by them as directors of companies or as partners of firms will not make them eligible to get the exemption in the pending matters. (ii) As far as the applicability of the Notification of 1 st October, 1994 is concerned, which is Issue No. 1, it will continue to apply to the suits which are already filed and which are pending in this Court though subject to the above, namely that those suits which are filed by women directors of companies or women partners of partnership 1 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 118 Page No. 3 of 4 27 August 2026 Megha 15_wp_3880_2016 firms will not make them eligible for exemption under the Notification. 6) Judgment in Jyoti S. Doshi (supra) has been followed by another coordinate Bench in Kiran wd/o Chunnilal Tareja and Another V/s. Ramchandra s/o Devidas Talreja and another 2 in which it is held in paragraph 11 as under:- 11. From perusal of paragraph 19 of the above judgment, it is evident that the learned Singhle Judge has held that Notification dated 23rd March, 2000 will not restrict or govern the exemption granted by Notification dated 1-10-1994 with regard to the payment of Court fees by women litigants provided those suits were filed by women litigants in their personal capacity. The learned Single Judge has further held that the matters filed on or after 23rd March, 2000 will be governed by Notification issued dated 23rd March, 2000. 7) Reliance by Mr. Thorat on judgment of this Court in Girish Kanaiyalal Munshi V/s. Sudha Girish Munshi & anr. 3 is inapposite. By that judgment, the Division Bench has clarified that the exemption under the second notification dated 23 March 2000 does not apply to the Petition for grant of probate of Will. In Girishi Kanaiyalal Munshi (supra) the issue before this Court was not about exemption applicable during window period from 1 October 1994 to 23 March 2000. 8) Considering the above position, the impugned order is unsustainable. Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 15 February 2016 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 2 2008(5) Mh.L.J. 958 3 2008(4) Bom C.R.787 Page No. 4 of 4 27 August 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 14:55:26