JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---In this revision application the plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 2-1-1998 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on Exh. 1.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Ashabai and Kaushalyabai for recovery of Rs. 2 Lakhs for compensation caused due to the loss of life of deceased Shivaji who died due to electric shock. The claim is made against M.S.E.B. (defendant) by the legal heirs of deceased Shivaji.

2-A. The office raised an objection that no Court fee was paid and, therefore, the learned Advocate for plaintiffs was heard on that point. In the Trial Court notification dated 1-10-1994 in respect of section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act was relied upon. The notification dated 1-10-1994 reads as below :

"REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT

Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st Oct. 1994

BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959.

No. STP/1094/CR-859/M-1. -Whereas the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to promote the welfare of the women;

And whereas, the said welfare policy for women inter alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce.

And whereas, section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI 1959), empowers the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to reduce or to remit any of the fees mentioned in the First and Second Schedules to that Act :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959), the Government of Maharashtra hereby remits the fees payable by women litigants on any of the plaints, applications, petitions, Memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the First and Second Schedules to the said Act to be filed in any Civil, Family or Criminal Courts in respect of the cases relating to (a) maintenance, (b) property disputes, (c) violence and (d) divorce.

By order in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,

HARSHWARDHAN GAJBHIYE

Deputy Secretary to Government."

3. The present suit is not covered by either of the types. It is true that in one case this Court has taken a view that when divorce suit or petition for divorce is mentioned in the notification then a wider meaning is required to be attached to the word including all matrimonial suits. This view is taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Sanjay Mahavirprasad Jain v. Vrishali Sanjay Jain)1, reported in 1997(4) Bom.C.R. 299 : 1997(2) Mh. L.J. 264.

4. Similarly in respect of dispute relating to property, another learned Single Judge of this Court has held in (Deepa v. State of Maharashtra)2, reported in 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 551 : 1996(1) Mh. L.J. 74 that in view of Article 7 of the First Schedule which includes any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss, including cases wherein application or petition is either treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as aforesaid. With reference to the above, the learned Judge held that the suit for specific performance is capable of being valued in terms of money and is covered by the residuary Article, i.e. Article 7. It was a suit for specific performance in respect of contract of sale of immovable property and as such with the aid of Article 7, the learned Judge has taken view that it falls in the category of property disputes as mentioned in the notification.

5. However, it must be borne in mind that a suit for recovery of money or a suit for recovery of any monetary claim arising out of negligence or any tortious act has not been included in the notification and in the absence of any such provision in the notification, the Court cannot interpret it by giving an extended meaning to the words "property disputes" by including therein a claim for compensation or an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document