1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4128/2010 (Dr. Vimalkishore G. Sikchi and another vrs. Regional Transport Authority and another.) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri R.D.Dharmadhikari, counsel for petitioners. Shri Mujumdar, AGP, for respondents. ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER, 2010. This writ petition challenges the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on the application Exh.40 filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of counter claim, as it suffers from deficit court fees. 2] In the counter claim filed by the respondent, the relief is claimed as under; “1. It be declared that the plaintiff RTO is the absolute and exclusive owner of Nazul Sheet No. 20, Nazul Plot No.9 2 measuring 150480 sq.ft. area shown by letters C,D,E,F,G,H,I.C. in the map attached herewith. 2. A decree for Rs.35,000/- be passed against the defendant Vimalkumar Sikchi towards the compensation for the damages caused by him. 3. Future interest on the decreetal amount be granted @ 18% p.a. 4. Costs of counter claim be saddled on the defendant. 5. Any other relief that the court deems fit be granted.” 3] The stand of the respondents was that the Court Fee in terms of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, has been paid. So far as relief no.1 is concerned, it being a simplicitor suit for declaration, fixed court fees of Rs.1000/- was paid, whereas on the ground of compensation of Rs.35,000/- claimed in prayer clause (2), court fees of Rs.2575/- was paid. So far as the payment of court fees on the relief claimed in prayer clause (2) is concerned, there is no dispute. Hence, the present writ petition. 3 4] The dispute is in respect of the Court fee payable for the relief made in prayer clause (1) 5] The trial Court has considered the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which undisputedly governs the controversy in the case. The relief claim does not include the relief of possession and hence, the trial Court has passed an order rejecting the application by holding that the valuation for the purposes of court fees to claim relief in terms of prayer clause (1) is correct. 6] No fault can be found with this order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit