R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:- Heard. A preliminary objection is sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent about deficit court fee being paid on the appeal by the appellant. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant is liable to pay court fee in terms of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, hereinafter called as "the said Act", and not in terms of Article 13(c) of Schedule II thereof. In the alternative, it is sought to be contended that the appellant is liable to pay court fee at least in terms of Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act. The appellant having paid the court fee in terms of Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act, the appeal is liable to be rejected in limine. On the other hand, the appellant insists that the provisions of law as regards the payment of court fees, which are attracted in the matter, are essentially those comprised under Article 13 of Schedule II of the said Act and none other.

2. The learned advocate for the respondent has drawn our attention to the decision of the Learned Single Judge of this court in Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2005)4 Mh.L.J.133: [200S(4) ALL MR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document