1 W.P. NO.8306/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8306 OF 2010 Vishal s/o Baburao Kamble, Age 28 years, Occ. Student, R/o Geeta Nagar, Opp. Azad College, Harsool Road, Aurangabad ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shafi Ahmed Khan s/o Shahnawaz Khan, Age 72 years, Occ. Business & Agri. R/o Rengtipura, Aurangabad. 2. Lala s/o Shivam Kamble, Age 50 years, Occ. Business & Agri., R/o Shivam Nagar, Opp. Azad College, Harsool Road, Aurangabad. 3. Kimo Co-operating Housing Society, through its Chief Promoter, Syed Shah Quadri Rais s/o Gulam Mohammed Quadri, Age 62 years,Occ. Business, R/o Chelipura, Aurangabad. 4. Maulana Azad Education Society, Roza Baug, Harsool Road, Aurangabad, through its President/Secretary. 5. The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Office, Town Centre, N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.M. Phule, Advocate holding for Shri D.V. Soman, Advocate for the petitioner Shri G.R. Syed, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... 2 W.P. NO.8306/2010 CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 8th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The controversy in the petition is in respect of the court fees payable by the petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No.278/2006. 3. By the impugned order dated 11.8.2010, on the application of the respondent No.3, the petitioner was directed to value the suit property as per Section 6(4)(d) of Bombay Court Fees Act and was directed to pay the additional Court fee within one month, failing which the plaint would stand rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. 5. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it would not be necessary for me to examine the rival contentions of 3 W.P. NO.8306/2010 the parties. It is noticed that, the petitioner has made an averment in this petition that as per notification under Section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are exempted from paying the court fees. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner belongs to reserved category and due to inadvertence and being unaware of the notification, the petitioner has not made such averment in the plaint and that, had such averment been made in the plaint, the petitioner would be exempted from paying the court fees as the petitioner is covered by the notification. The learned counsel submitted that presently the petitioner holds a caste certificate showing that he belongs to reserved category and he would like to avail of the benefit of the exemption Notification. 6. Considering the above, in my view, since the petitioner already possesses a Caste Certificate and since it is stated that the petitioner is covered by the notification, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to avail of the benefit under the Notification, if he is so entitled. The court fees, which would otherwise be required to be paid by the petitioner, would be substantial and I see no reason why the petitioner should be denied this benefit simply because of lack of knowledge and absence of the averment in that regard in the plaint. 4 W.P. NO.8306/2010 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted liberty to make an application to the trial Court for amendment in the plaint to incorporate the averment about his belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe and of his possessing the said certificate and that he is exempted from paying the court fees being covered by the Notification. On such application being made, the trial Court would allow the amendment to the plaint in the light of the observations contained in this order. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, since the petitioner possesses a caste certificate in his favour, he will endeavour to get the caste certificate verified by the Scrutiny Committee within a period of one year from today as according to him it would take that much time to obtain the Caste Validity Certificate. In the event the application for verification of the caste certificate is made to the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee would endeavour to decide the same at the earliest. 8. In the premises, the impugned order is set aside. The application of the respondent No.3 under Section 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code shall be deemed to have been revived. After the amendment is carried out, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to submit the Caste Validity Certificate within a period of 5 W.P. NO.8306/2010 one year from today. If the Caste Validity Certificate is produced within one year from today, the trial Court shall examine the claim for exemption of the petitioner and pass necessary orders on the application of respondent No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. If the Caste Validity Certificate is not produced within one year from today, the application of the respondent No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code shall be decided afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. It will however be open to the petitioner, notwithstanding this order, to pay the Court fees as directed in the impugned order if he wants to have his Exh. 5 application decided earlier. 9. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition disposed of. Rule made absolute to the extent above. No order as to costs. A.A. SAYED JUDGE