1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2010 Balaji Anandrao Katale and others ... PETITIONERS V E R S U S Nivrutti limbaji Katale ... RESPONDENT ... Mr.Ashish Jadhavar,Advocate holding for Mr.N.P.Patil ,Advocate for Petitioners ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 30th APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Heard. The petitioners are original defendants, who had preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, whereby mesne profit have been granted, besides other main relief. Initially, the first Appellate Court directed that Court fees may be recovered at the time of deciding the appeal and cross objections. 2] The contention of the counsel is that such order dated 2nd May, 2009 was later on varied on 21.11.2009 , without any substantial reason. He submits that in view of section 13 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, recovery of court fees could be ordered only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. 3] Perusal of section 13 of the Bombay Court Fees Act 2 goes to show that it deals with payment of court fees at the time of judgment in the suit, where the relief of recovery of possession of immovable property with mesne profits or only for mesne profits are claimed. It appears that purport of the provision is to give direction for recovery of deficit court fees at the time of final disposal, because only when judgment is rendered the total amount recoverable by way of mesne profits can be quantified. It is un-ascertained sum till final judgment is rendered in the suit. This provision is not applicable to the Appellate proceeding, therefore, there is nothing perverse in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK