1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1074 OF 2009 Ghanshyam Sadashivrao Diwase Vs. Mangala Dhananjay Khanke & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R. S. Kurekar Adv. for petitioner. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 8 st APRIL, 2009. This Writ Petition has been filed by the original defendant in Civil Suit No. 108 of 1999 pending on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division Chandrapur. Respondent herein has filed civil suit for partition and separate possession of the ancestral property. The petitioner/defendant appeared in the suit and filed an application purporting to be an application under 2 Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. His main contention is that the petitioner was liable to pay court fee and is not exempted from payment of court fee which is required to be otherwise paid under the Court Fees Act. Learned Judge of the trial Court heard the parties and he found that when the civil suit was filed by the plaintiff, exemption was available to her from payment of court fee and although subsequently the Government has withdrawn that exemption by a subsequent Notification, subsequent Notification did not have a retrospective effect, holding so he rejected the contention as raised and dismissed the application. I have heard Shri Kurekar learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the learned Judge of the trial Court committed an error in granting exemption by holding that the plaintiff was exempted from paying court fees. According to him suit is one for partition and separate possession of the ancestral property and dispute in suit does not relate to matrimonial dispute therefore exemption is not available. The submission has no force. The Civil Suit was filed 3 in the year 1999. In the year 1999 admittedly exemption was available to women litigants from payment of court fees even in respect of the suit for partition of the ancestral properties. Said exemption was withdrawn by the Government by issuing another Notification in the year 23rd March 2000. Learned Judge of the trial Court has relied on the decision reported in 2000(4) Maharashtra Law Journal 228 (Jyoti S. Joshi Vs. M/s Hindustan Hosiery Mills) and 2001(4) All MR 1 (Bipin Dalpatbhai Shah Vs. Vasantben Rasilal Zaveri) , wherein it is held by this Court that the Notification of the year 23rd March 2000 does not have retrospective effect and the plaintiffs who have instituted a suit before issuance of said Notification in the year 2000 are exempted. In view of these decisions I do not find any substance in the Writ Petition. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE svk