1 fa515-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.515 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.931 OF 2011 Chandrabhagabai P. Shevare & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Manoj Gangadhar Burkule & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. M. M. Sathaye for the appellants. Mr. P. B. Shah for respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2011. P.C.:- Not on board. Taken on board. 2. On 23rd March, 2011 parties were put to notice that Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. The submissions were extensively heard yesterday. The Appeal was kept today at 4.50 p.m. 3. The order under challenge is of rejection of the plaint in so far as original plaintiff Nos. 5 to 8 are concerned. The Appeal is preferred by all the plaintiffs. The order of rejection of the plaint is mainly on the ground that the plaintiff Nos. 5 to 8 could not produce the Caste Validity 2 fa515-11 Certificate from the Cast Scrutiny Committee. In paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has held that the plaintiff Nos. 5 to 8 have not filed their Caste Validity Certificate. Therefore, the plaint was rejected as far as the said plaintiffs are concerned. The said plaintiffs claim to be the members of a Scheduled Tribe and therefore, they have claimed exemption from payment of Court fees under Section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. 4. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment and order dated 6th May, 2010, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10833 of 2009. By this order, this Court has set aside earlier order passed in the same suit by which the trial Court directed plaintiffs to pay Court fees. The operative part of the order of this Court reads thus: “(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside subject to condition of all the plaintiffs producing scheduled tribe certificates issued in accordance with section 4(1) of the said Act of 2000 within a period of eight weeks from today. The plaintiffs shall file a true copy of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on record of the trial Court within two weeks from the date on which the same is received by them. (ii) If the plaintiffs fail to comply with the aforesaid directions within the time stipulated by this Court, the trial Court shall invoke clause (c) of rule 11 of Order VII of the said Code.” 5. As per the said order, the plaintiff Nos. 5 to 8 have produced the caste certificates issued under Section 4(1) as per the said Act of 2000 3 fa515-11 within the time stipulated by this Court. It is not in dispute that the respondents-defendants have raised an objection before the trial Court as regards the caste claim of the plaintiff Nos. 5 to 8 that they belong to a Scheduled Tribes. There is no verification proceeding pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee as regards the said plaintiffs. In the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.10833 of 2009, in particular, in paragraph No.12 this Court has observed thus: “Neither under the provisions of the said Act of 2000 nor under the provisions of the said Rules there is a provision by which a Civil Court can issue directions to a Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim within a specified time. However, Rule 7 of the said Rules provides that any complaint or allegations that a person to who a scheduled tribes certificate has been issued, is not belonging to a scheduled tribe shall be inquired into by the concerned Scrutiny Committee. It is provided in that such complaints shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt. In case of a suit where plaintiff has filed scheduled tribe certificate issued by the Competent Authority, if the Court has any doubt as to whether plaintiff belongs to a scheduled tribe, the Court can always direct one of its officers to lodge a complaint under rule 7. Even on an objection being raised by a defendant, the Court can direct one of its officers to file such a complaint. If the complaint is decided against the plaintiff and his caste claim is held to be invalid, the Court can follow the procedure under clause (c) of rule 11 of order VII of the said Code.” 6. When objections were raised by the defendants against the caste claim of plaintiff Nos.5 to 8, the learned trial Judge ought to have taken recourse to the option provided in the aforesaid decision by directing the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of his Court to file a 4 fa515-11 complaint as contemplated by Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, so that the caste claim could have been adjudicated upon by the concerned Scrutiny Committee. In the present case, the learned Judge, instead directing that a complaint should be filed to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, has chosen to straightway reject the plaint of the petitioners on the ground of non production of the Caste Validity Certificate. In the earlier order, outer limit was fixed by this Court only for production of caste certificate under Section 4(1) of the said Act of 2000. In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by issuing necessary directions. 6. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. ii. The learned trial Judge shall issue necessary direction to the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent or any other competent officer of his Court to lodge a complaint in accordance with Rule 7 of the said Rules of 2003 in terms of 5 fa515-11 the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.10933 of 2009. The learned trial Judge shall issue such direction on production of authenticated copy of this order. Alongwith the complaint, the said officer shall file true copies of the order passed in writ petition No.10833 of 2009 as well as this order. iii. It is obvious that after such complaint is filed, the Caste Scrutiny Committee will act upon the said complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. iv. All contentions of the parties as regards the caste claim of the plaintiff Nos. 5 to 8 are expressly kept open. v. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. vi. Civil Application No.931 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE