IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3734 of 2011 Manohar M. Tharkar and others ..Vs.. Ramdas M. Tharkar and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Mardkar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 22 nd August, 2011. Heard Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the respondents. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, along with the order passed by the trial court on 15.7.2011, it appears that the trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint. It is necessary to note that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the agricultural fields and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the same. A permanent injunction was also sought by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit fields. All the suit fields were the agricultural property and one of the field was converted to non- agricultural use. Hence, the plaintiffs had paid the court fee on the basis of the provisions of Sec. 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. Since it was the suit for a declaration of ownership, one fourth of ad-volerem fee leviable for a suit for possession was liable to be paid thereon. However, since the plaintiffs had also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiffs were liable to pay one half of ad-volerem fee leviable for a suit for possession. The plaintiffs had, therefore, paid the court fee in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6(iv)(d) read with Sec. 6(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. Since the land was agricultural land, it appears that the plaintiffs had paid the court fee equal to 40 times the survey assessment of the agricultural field in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6(v)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. On the land which was converted to non- agricultural use the plaintiffs paid the court fee in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6(iv)(d) of the Act. In this background, the trial court held that the correct court fee was paid by the plaintiff and the application filed by the defendants/petitioners under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of plaint was liable to be rejected. The judgment reported in 2000(4) Mah.L.J. 492 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot help the petitioners for advancing their case in this writ petition. In fact, the judgment reported in 2010(6) ALL MR 673 can be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan