1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR M.C.A.NO.381 of 2010 in F.A.ST.NO.9304 of 2009 Sau.Nilima w/o Dharmendra Patil and anr. .vs. Hukumchand Panmal Daga and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.Kavimandan Adv. for the applicants. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 21st April, 2010. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the office had rejected the registration of the appeal as the court fee as directed by the office was not paid. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.Code. The appellants had filed a pursis stating that for the purposes of jurisdiction the claim was valued at Rs.3,72,000/- while for the purpose of court fee it was valued at Rs.1000/- and court fee of Rs.200/- was paid. The learned counsel for the appellants brings to my notice Article 23(f) of the II Schedule of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. According to the 2 said Article, every plaint, petition or application which is capable of being treated as suit has to be valued according to Article 23(f) as mentioned in Article 23(f). Order passed by the office refusing the registration of the appeal for non-payment of the court fee is, therefore, set aside. The valuation made by the appellants therefore appears to be correct. Office to register the appeal. The objection is deemed to have been complied with. JUDGE. chute