k 1/3 15 wp 1310.21 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1310 OF 2021 Gaurishankar Neelkanth Kalyani & Ors. ....Petitioners V/S State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Shubham S. Suryawanshi for the Petitioners. Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2026. P.C.: 1. The Petition challenges order dated 18 November 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibag, partly allowing Application at Exhibit-42 ?led by Defendant Nos.4 to 7 under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). The Trial Court has directed valuation of the Suit under Section 6(4)(i) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Court Fees Act) and pay stamp duty accordingly. 2. I have heard Mr. Kanetkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Respondents are duly served but have failed to appear in the matter. 3. The Plaintiffs have ?led a Suit seeking a declaration that the Defendant Nos.4 to 7 cannot claim any share in the compensation in respect of acquired land of the Defendant No.3-Trust. The Plaintiffs do katkam Page No. 1 of 3 k 2/3 15 wp 1310.21 as.doc not seek any bene?t for themselves in the compensation for the acquired land. In that view of the matter, it is questionable as of now as to whether Plaintiffs need to pay Court Fees on the market value of the land or in the total value of compensation. 4. The Trial Court has directed suit valuation under Section 6(4)(i) of the Court Fees Act. Section 6(4)(i) of the Court Fees Act is for valuation of the Suits for accounts. It therefore appears that the provision quoted by the Trial Court for directing valuation of the Suit is apparently erroneous. 5. Mr. Kanetkar fairly submits that the issue relating to suit valuation can be left open to be decided at the time of ?nal disposal of the Suit. 6. In my view therefore, the order dated 18 November 2019 passed by the Trial Court suffers from several errors and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Writ Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 18 November 2019 passed by the Trial Court on Application at Exhibit-42 is set aside. 8. However, it is clari?ed that the issue relating to the valuation of the Suit is left open to be decided by the Court while answering the issues framed in the Suit. If necessary, the Trial Court can proceed to frame an additional issue relating to valuation of the suit. katkam Page No. 2 of 3 k 3/3 15 wp 1310.21 as.doc 9. All contentions of parties with regard to Suit valuation are expressly kept open. 10. In view of the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 3 of 3 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2026.02.13 15:29:28 +0530