JUDGMENT :

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

2. Petitioners hereinafter called plaintiffs instituted suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 and sought following relief’s:

(1) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 be directed to register the sale deed dated 1st February, 2011;

(2) A fit and competent person be appointed as Court Commissioner to admit execution on behalf of defendant nos.2 to 5 and the document, i.e., sale deed dated 1st February, 2011 be registered.

Thus, suit was for seeking direction to the respondent nos.1 to 5 to register the sale deed dated 1st February, 2011.

3. Petitioners valued suit in terms of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1958; it reads as under:

"6(iv)(j) for other declarations

In suits where declaration is sought, with or without injunction or other consequential relief and the subject-matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation and which are not otherwise provided for by this Act [ad valorem fee payable, as if the amount or value of the subject-matter was [one thousand rupees;]"

4. The learned Judge, however, held that suit is subject to valuation, in terms of Section 6(xi) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1958 vide order dated 27th March, 2012. This order is challenged in this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the subject suit is to enforce compliance with the statute and subject matter of the suit, being right to compel statutory obligation and the plaintiffs are asking assistance of the Court to compel the respondents to perform their statutory obligation. He submits, such right to compel to perform the obligations provided by the statute being, incapable of monetary valuation, and there being no provision under the Court-fees Act for such a suit, provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Court-fees Act are attracted and they are applicable to the suit.

6. Mr. Patwardhan has taken me through the plaint, which discloses that the sale deed dated 1st February, 2011 was presented for registration on 1st February, 2011 before the Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.2, Pune. It was duly executed by twenty parties in all, out of which plaintiffs (3 parties) were the purchasers, nine parties were vendors and eight parties were the consenting parties. Out of aforesaid twenty parties, 16 parties appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.2 and admitted execution of the sale deed. However, four parties, i.e., defendant nos.2 to 5 did not personally appear before the concerned Sub-Registrar despite letter dated 16th May, 2011 addressed to them by the Sub-Registrar. Plaintiffs, in these circumstances, issued a notice dated 22nd July, 2011 to the Sub-Registrar requesting him to pass reasoned order for refusing registration under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 or order registration of the said document after conducting an enquiry contemplated under Section 74 of the Registration Act. Registrar vide order dated 3rd October, 2011 refused registration in respect of said four executants, who are defendant nos.2 to 5 and registered the document at Sr.No.1082 on 3rd October, 2011 in respect of remaining executants. Thus, Sub-Registrar has refused registration on the ground of denial of execution.

7. Aggrieved by the order, plaintiffs filed an application under Section 73 of the Registration Act before the Registrar to conduct an enquiry as provided under Section 74 of the Registration Act, 1908 and order to register the document i.e. the sale deed dated 1st February, 2011. Registrar by his order dated 20th January, 2012 refused to order the registration and, therefore, plaintiffs instituted suit within thirty days from the date of refusal of registration under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908.

8. I have perused the plaint and in particular par