1. Rule with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. A short question which arises in the above Petition is, whether the Plaintiffs are required to pay court fees in terms of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act or as directed by the Trial Court under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

3. To appreciate the controversy involved, a few facts are necessary to be cited. The Plaintiffs have filed a suit being S.C. Suit No.439 of 2011 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, and the substantive relief sought in the said suit is to the following effect:-

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants jointly or severely, their servants, agent and person or persons claiming through or under them from entering and/or remaining upon the suit premises of the Plaintiffs being Flat No.42, Rijhumal Mansion, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 026 or on any part or portion thereof and remove themselves with their bag and baggages and not to come upon the said flat at any time thereafter in any manner whatsoever.”

Hence the suit in question has been filed for simplicitor injunction against the Respondents who are the Defendants in the said suit from entering and/or remaining upon the suit premises of the Plaintiffs being Flat No.42, Rijhumal Mansion, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 026. The suit in question is founded on the fact that the Plaintiff No.1 had purchased the suit premises along with his brother Shri Ramchand Kishindas Kalro by an Agreement for Sale dated 23/08/1979 from Shri Bhim Sen Phull and Smt. Indira B Phull. Thereafter by an Agreement of Sale dated 5/5/1983 the Plaintiff' No.1's brother sold his one half share to the Plaintiff No.1 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It seems thereafter the Plaintiffs have been accepted as members of the society and the society has transferred the Share Certificate from the name of the previous owners to the names of the Plaintiffs. It is the case of the Plaintiff that they are regularly paying maintenance charges to the society. It is further averred in the plaint that the Respondent No.1 was born some time in the year 1976 and he and the Respondent No.2 were married in the year 2008. It is further averred that the Respondents were staying with the Plaintiffs as members of the family. The estrangement between the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been averred as also there are averments relating to the proceedings filed by the Respondent No.2 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as also the criminal case filed against the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 wherein the Respondent No.1 has been charged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cause for filing of the suit in question as averred in the plaint are the said background facts on account which the Plaintiffs are seeking injunction against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from entering the premises in question. It seems that in the proceedings adopted by the Respondent No.2 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for brevity sake referred to as “the Domestic Violence Act), an order has been passed under Section 17 thereof mandating the Respondents in the said application i.e. the Petitioners herein and the Respondent No.1 to permit the Respondent No.2 to stay in the shared household. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner No.2 and the Respondent No.1 herein has been dismissed, and therefore in so far as the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are concerned, there is an order in favour of the Respondent No.2 under Section 17 of the said Act.

4. In so far as the present proceedings are concerned, it seems that the Respondent No.2 herein filed a Written Statement and questioned the title of the Petitioners to the flat in question. In the light of the pleadings which were on record, the Trial Court had initially framed some issues. It seems that thereafter the issues were recasted by th