:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8175 OF 2007 M/s.B.G.Construction Technology Pvt.Ltd and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Shri Bhagwan Dnyanu Thorat ....Respondents ====== Mr.V.B.Tapkir, Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 29th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order passed below Exhibit-16 in Special Civil Suit no. 61 of 2006. 2. The petitioner defendant to the said suit by the subject application pointed out that the original plaintiff has not paid the court-fees which are required to be paid for the purposes of valuation and :2: :2: :2: jurisdiction under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. He points out that the plaintiff claims exemption from payment of court fees on the ground that he is the ex-soldier. In such circumstances, the suit cannot proceed. 3. That application has been opposed by the original plaintiff and he relies upon the Notification of the State Government. 4. The objection is rejected and that is how this petition. 5. In my view, merely because the application has been rejected, does not mean that the petitioner is precluded from raising appropriate pleas with regard to the applicability of the Notification in question. In my view, in the light of the application that was preferred by the petitioner-defendant and the contents thereof, it would be just, fair and proper, if the Trial Court decides the issue of maintainability of the suit on the ground of the original plaintiff having not paid the requisite court-fees and decide the same in :3: :3: :3: accordance with law, after hearing both sides. Needless to state, that the said issue be decided alongwith other issues. All pleas in that behalf are kept open. 6. This order is passed because Mr.Tapkir, submits that the learned Judge has misconstrued the Notification and misapplied the same. There is no exemption from payment of court-fees, but, there is a remission contemplated. The two concepts are distinct. In my view, this aspect of the matter should be gone into, at the stage at which I have directed the Trial Court. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere, more particularly in the light of the clarification issued. Petition disposed off. No costs. sd/- *******