V. C. DAGA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the Civil judge, Senior Division, Karad below Exh. 28 in special Civil Suit No. 463 of 2000 rejecting the application moved by the defendant for direction to the plaintiff to pay necessary court fee oh the valuation of the suit claim. The Facts :

( 2 ) THE facts in short reveal that the respondents/ original plaintiffs have filed Special civil Suit, claiming compensation to the tune of rs. 7,50,000/- from the petitioners on the ground that the accidental death of Shakeel Kasam Patel was caused due to the negligence of the petitioners/ original defendants, on payment of court fee only on the claim of Rs. 2,56,000/- out of Rs. 7,50,000/- contending that the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 being women litigants are exempted from payment of court fee as per notification dated 1st October, 1994. The said suit came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No. 463 of 2000 and allotted to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior division, Karad.

( 3 ) ). The original defendants/ present petitioners on being served with the suit summons filed their written statement, inter alia; denying the entire claim set up by the respondents/ original plaintiffs and also moved an application marked as Exh. 28 contending therein that plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, the said women litigants cannot be allowed to claim benefit of the exemption notification dated 1st October, 1994 as the suit of the present nature is not in respect of the cases relating to (a) maintenance; (b) property dispute; (c) violence and (d) divorce as such they may be directed to pay necessary court fee on the balance amount of claim amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The above application was objected and opposed by original plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 contending that the notification dated 1st October, 1994 is very much applicable to their case and they are very much within the net of the exemption notification. The said application was heard by the Civil Judge, senior Division, Karad, who was pleasedto hold that in view of notification dated 1st October, 1994, plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were exempted from payment of court fee, consequently, application moved by the defendant seeking direction to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of court fee came to be rejected by impugned order dated 16th june, 2003. The above order is a subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Submissions :

( 4 ) SHRI S. R. Page, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the notification dated 1st. October, 1994 does not cover suit of the present nature. In other words he submits that the present suit is not covered by any of the clauses of the notification. He further submits that the trial Court could not have rejected the said application in view of the law settled by this Court in various cases including that of Smt. Ashabai v. Executive Engineer, m. S. E. B. (0 and M) Division, 1999 (2) BCR 194; miss. Jyoti S. Doshi v. M/s. Hindustan Hosiery mill, 2000 (3) BCR 813 and Shri Bipin Dalpatbhai shah v. Vasantben Rasilal Zavari, 2001 (4) ALL MR 1. Mr. page, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 16th June, 2003 and suitable directions directing plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 to pay requisite court fee.

( 5 ) MR. GAIKWAD, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/ original plaintiffs tried to support the impugned order but found it difficult to take his submissions to logical end in view of various adverse judgments holding the field. He, faced with the series of adverse judgments of this court found it difficult to support the impugned order. He, thus, came out with a purshis dated 5th april, 2004, which is taken on record and marked x for identification; wherein he urged that plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, not being in a position to pay the court fee as required under the Bombay court Fees Act, 1959, for want of movable and immovable property or any source o