Bombay High Court

GAURISHANKAR NEELKANTH KALYANI AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The trial court’s order directing suit valuation under Section 6(4)(i) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act is erroneous and is set aside, with the valuation issue left open for determination during the suit.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a November 2019 order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibag, which had partially allowed an application by defendants 4‑7 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and directed that the suit be valued under Section 6(4)(i) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act with corresponding stamp duty. The underlying suit seeks a declaration that defendants 4‑7 have no entitlement to compensation from land acquired by defendant 3‑Trust, and the plaintiffs themselves do not claim any benefit. The key issue was whether Section 6(4)(i), which pertains to suits for accounts, was applicable for valuing this suit. The High Court held that the trial court’s reliance on that provision was erroneous and that the valuation question could be deferred to the final determination of the suit. Consequently, the trial court’s order was set aside, the valuation issue was left open for later adjudication, and the writ petition was disposed of in favour of the petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6(4)(i) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act applies to the valuation of the present suit.
Whether the trial court erred in directing suit valuation and stamp duty at the interlocutory stage.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11(d)
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 — s. 6(4)(i)

Subjects

court fees
suit valuation
Code of Civil Procedure
stamp duty
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction
Maharashtra Court Fees Act

Judgment

k 1/3 15 wp 1310.21 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1310 OF 2021

Gaurishankar Neelkanth Kalyani & Ors. ....Petitioners
V/S
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
_________

Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Shubham S. Suryawanshi for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
__________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2026.
P.C.:

1. The Petition challenges order dated 18 November 2019 passed by
the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibag, partly allowing
Application at Exhibit-42 ?led by Defendant Nos.4 to 7 under Order VII,
Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). The Trial
Court has directed valuation of the Suit under Section 6(4)(i) of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Court Fees Act) and pay stamp duty
accordingly.

2. I have heard Mr. Kanetkar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners. Respondents are duly served but have failed to appear in the
matter.

3. The Plaintiffs have ?led a Suit seeking a declaration that the
Defendant Nos.4 to 7 cannot claim any share in the compensation in
respect of acquired land of the Defendant No.3-Trust. The Plaintiffs do
katkam Page No. 1 of 3
k 2/3 15 wp 1310.21 as.doc

not seek any bene?t for themselves in the compensation for the acquired
land. In that view of the matter, it is questionable as of now as to
whether Plaintiffs need to pay Court Fees on the market value of the
land or in the total value of compensation.

4. The Trial Court has directed suit valuation under Section 6(4)(i) of
the Court Fees Act. Section 6(4)(i) of the Court Fees Act is for valuation
of the Suits for accounts. It therefore appears that the provision quoted
by the Trial Court for directing valuation of the Suit is apparently
erroneous.

5. Mr. Kanetkar fairly submits that the issue relating to suit
valuation can be left open to be decided at the time of ?nal disposal of
the Suit.

6. In my view therefore, the order dated 18 November 2019 passed by
the Trial Court suffers from several errors and the same is liable to be set
aside.

7. Writ Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 18 November 2019
passed by the Trial Court on Application at Exhibit-42 is set aside.

8. However, it is clari?ed that the issue relating to the valuation of
the Suit is left open to be decided by the Court while answering the
issues framed in the Suit. If necessary, the Trial Court can proceed to
frame an additional issue relating to valuation of the suit.

katkam Page No. 2 of 3
k 3/3 15 wp 1310.21 as.doc

9. All contentions of parties with regard to Suit valuation are
expressly kept open.

10. In view of the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2026.02.13
15:29:28
+0530

katkam Page No. 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…