15 CRA 344 OF 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2026 Alex Peter Dabre ... Applicant versus Jayesh Alex Dabre and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Srushti Chalke i/by Mr. Drupad Patil, for Applicant. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 7 JULY 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. 2. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 16 June 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vasai, whereby the application preferred by the Applicant – Defendant No.1, for rejection of the plaint on the ground of under-valuation of the suit claim and non-payment of the requisite court fees, under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected. 3. Ms. Chalke, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the averments in the plaint indicate that, not only there are residential houses, but also the shops over the suit property No.1. Thus, the Trial Court was in error in holding that the suit claim was properly valued. 4. From the perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the suit property No.1 is assessed to revenue. Under the provisions of Section 6(v) SSP 1/3 SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Digitally signed by SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Date: 2026.07.08 20:13:18 +0530 15 CRA 344 OF 2026.doc and (vii) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, where the land is held on a permanent settlement or on a settlement for any period exceeding thirty years and pays the full assessment to the Government then the market value of such land shall be deemed to be a sum equal to eighty times the survey assessment. In the facts of the case at hand, whether the houses constructed over the property No.1 have the propensity to convert the agricultural land assessed to revenue into a non-agricultural land, is a matter which warrants adjudication at the trial. At the threshold, the Court cannot draw an inference as to whether the land has been converted to non- agricultural use. 5. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench judgment of this Court Dilip Khushalchand (Srisrimal) Jain and Ors. V/s. Hardik Deepakbhai Ramani and Ors.1, since the Plaintiff is not a party to the gift deed, the Plaintiff is not required to pay court fees on the market value of the property No.2, when the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the said instrument does not bind the Plaintiff. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and having regard to the fact that the plaint cannot be rejected straightaway without providing an opportunity to the Plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the deficit court fee, at this juncture, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned 1 WP No.8968 of 2018 dt. 5 May 2022 Aurangabad Bench SSP 2/3 15 CRA 344 OF 2026.doc order. It would be open for the Defendants to raise the ground of improper valuation of the suit claim and the deficit court fees allegedly paid thereon. In the event, such a dispute is raised, the trial Court shall decide the same along with other issues that may arise for determination at the trial, without being influenced by any of the observations in the impugned order. 7. With the aforesaid clarification, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3