k 1/2 912 cra 116.19 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2019 Madhukar Hari Deshmukh & Ors. ....Applicants V/S M/s. Regency Nirman Ltd. ....Respondent _________ Mr. V.N. Biwalkar i/b Mr. Sanjay A. Ghaisas for the Applicants. Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for Respondent. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1. The challenge in the Revision Application is to the order dated 3 July 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ulhasnagar, rejecting the Application at Exhibit-12 deciding the preliminary issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court regarding valuation of the Suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 2. I have heard Mr. Biwalkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Datar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Original Plaintiff. 3. Perusal of the Plaint would indicate that the Suit has been filed seeking a declaration that the Defendants have no right to interfere with katkam Page No. 1 of 2 k 2/2 912 cra 116.19 as.doc property rights of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also sought a declaration against Defendants to restrain them from interfering with Plaintiff's right in the property. 4. According to Mr. Biwalkar, the Suit ought to have been valued under the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act (Court Fees Act). However, the Plaintiff is not seeking any declaration of title in the Suit and I do not see any reason why the Suit is required to be valued under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act. The intention of the legislature appears to be clear. If a third party is attempting to interfere in the property rights of the Plaintiff negative declaration is required to be sought and Court fees based on valuation of the property need not be paid. On the other hand, if the Plaintiff is seeking a positive declaration of ownership in respect of a property, Court Fees based on valuation of the property needs to be paid. In the present case since Plaintiff is not seeking declaration of ownership in respect of the property, the Suit has rightly been valued under provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Court Fees Act. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. 5. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly rejected. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 2 of 2 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.11.15 18:43:42 +0530