-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2009 Hindustan Construction Combine Promoters and Builders .. Petitioner (Org.Defendant) V/s. Mrs. Jagmohan Kaur Sehgal .. Respondent. (Org.Plaintiff) --- Mrs. V.V. Thorat for Petitioner. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 28th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 28th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 28th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mrs. Thorat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This revision takes exception to the order dated 13.11.2008 passed by the trial court below Exh. 17 in R.C.Suit No. 1348/2008. The petitioner is the original defendant who has filed the application at Exh.17 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. The said application was rejected by the order impugned in the present civil revision application. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit was filed for specific performance and if the consideration amount of the suit agreement is taken into consideration, the suit exceeds the -: 2 :- pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of Jt. Civil Judge, Jr.Dvn. Pune. 3. On the contrary it was the contention of the respondent, the original plaintiff, that the suit is for enforcement of the statutory obligation under section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 and therefore, provisions of section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 will apply. 4. The learned trial court Judge relied upon the ratio of the decision in the case of Maria Phitomina Pereira vs. Maria Phitomina Pereira vs. Maria Phitomina Pereira vs. Rodgigues Construction, Rodgigues Construction, Rodgigues Construction, reported in AIR 1990 (2) Bombay C.R. 27) and held that the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division has a pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. I have perused the impugned order and the ratio of the Maria Phitomina Pereira’s case (supra). I have also perused the plaint. The title of the suit reveals that the suit is filed for enforcement of the statutory obligation under section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. This court in Maria’s case (supra) has held that the suit for enforcement of statutory liability would not fall within the scope of section 6(xi) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and provisions of section 6 (iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act will apply. Thus the issue raised is covered by -: 3 :- the said judgement. I do not find any error in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any substance. 6. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....