1 sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.702 OF 2009 Rajan Gopinath Khot & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Prafulla Kamalakar Gavande and ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajeev Matkar for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in a suit filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963. According to the case of the petitioners, they were in possession of Flat No.8 admeasuring 550 sq. ft. on the first floor of Mahim Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,Mumbai. 2 The prayer in the suit is for passing a decree directing the respondents-defendants to hand over to the plaintiff a quiet and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. Flat No.8 admeasuring 550 sq. ft. By the impugned order dated 7 th July 2007, the petitioners/plaintiffs have been directed to value the suit in accordance with section 6 (v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Article 2 of the Schedule I of the said Act of 1959. He submitted that in view of the fact that the suit is under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the subject matter of the suit is not an immoveable property i.e the suit flat. He urged that the subject matter of the suit is the act on the part of the respondent- defendant of forcibly dispossessing the petitioners. He submitted that the subject matter of the suit cannot be termed as the immoveable property of which the petitioners have been dispossessed. He submitted that in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the prayer is for restoration of the status quo ante irrespective of the issue of title. He submitted that the prayer for the restoration of status quo ante relates to the action of dispossession and not to property subject matter of the suit. He therefore submitted that section 6 (iv) (j) of the said Act will apply to the suit. He submitted that the trial court has committed an error by holding that the suit will have to be valued in terms of the clause (v) of section 6 of the said Act. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Article 2 of Schedule I of the said Act reads thus : 2 Plaint in a suit for A fee of one-half the possession under[Section amount prescribed in 3 6 of the Specific Relief the scale under Article Act, 1963] 1. On plain reading of Article 2, court fees payable will be one half of the amount prescribed in the scale under Article 1. The prayer in the suit is for passing a decree for possession in respect of the immoveable property i.e. The suit flat. The only provision of the said Act which deals with the suit for possession of the houses is clause (v) of section 6. Clause (iv) (j) of section 6 of the said Act which is sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with the suits where declaration is sought with or without or consequential relief and where the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation. Thus, on plain reading of the clause (iv)(j) of section 6 of the said Act, the same will not apply to a suit for possession. In the present case, the only substantive relief prayed for is a decree for possession in respect of the suit flat. Apart from the fact that there is no prayer for declaration in the suit, the subject matter of the suit is the suit flat which is more particularly described in the plaint. Therefore, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees will be governed by section 6 (v) of the said Act as held under the impugned order. The suit being under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, in view of Article 2 of schedule I 4 of the said Act, one half of the ad-valoram court fees will be payable on the valuation of the suit flat made as per section 6 (v) of the said Act. 4 Therefore, there is no error in the view taken by the learned trial Judge. Writ Petition is rejected. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that ad-interim order passed on 3 rd February 2009 may be continued. The said prayer cannot be acceded to in view of clear provisions of law. However, time of six weeks is granted to comply with the impugned order. JUDGE