JUDGMENT 1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.4 to 12. The said Respondents are accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioner. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by which order application Exhibit 82 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be decided and the Plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner herein was directed to deposit the court fees by properly valuing the subject matter of the suit. 4. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above writ petition in brief are as under: The Petitioner herein is the original plaintiff and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the deleted Respondents are the original Defendants to the suit in question being Special Civil Suit No. 58 of 2011. The said suit has been filed for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit properties. The said suit was originally filed before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and was numbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 38 of 2010. Thereafter the suit was amended and the suit claim was valued at Rs.1,25,01,000/-. In view of the said change in the valuation, which amendment was allowed by the Trial Court by its order dated 13.12.2010, the suit came to be transferred to the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur and has now been registered as Special Civil Suit No. 58 of 2011. The Petitioner herein who is the Original Plaintiff, was originally serving in the Indian Army and was holding the post of Lieutenant Colonel at the relevant time and was a member of the Territorial Army in Kolhapur. The Petitioner claimed remission in payment of the Court fees on the basis of Government Notification dated 11.11.1965 and the Circular dated 14.12.1990. It seems that in response thereto, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who were the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit, filed application, which was numbered as Exhibit 82 and invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. It seems that in response thereto, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who were the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit, filed application, which was numbered as Exhibit 82 and invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. It was the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner is not entitled for the remission of the Court fees in terms of the Government Notification dated 2.3.1977 and as such remission is available only to the Indian Soldiers who have retired or are honourably discharged. It was their case that the Petitioner still being in service, was not entitled to the said remission and since the Petitioner has not paid the proper Court fees on the basis of the valuation of the suit, the suit be dismissed. To the said Application Exhibit 82, the Petitioner filed his reply. The Petitioner relied upon the Government Notification dated 11.11.1965, as also the Circular dated 14.12.1990 issued by Dy. Inspector General of Registration Government of Maharashtra. The Petitioner reiterated his case that he is entitled to remission from payment of Court fees in terms of the said notification and the Circular issued by the State Government. The Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur considered the said application and by the impugned order dated 18.4.2012 decided the said Application Ex.82 and directed the Petitioner to deposit the Court fees by making proper valuation. 5. The impugned order, as can be seen, discloses that the Trial Court considered the said application only on the touchstone of the Government Notification dated 2.3.1977 and has not taken into consideration the Government Notification dated 11.11.1965 and Circular of the Government dated 14.12.1990. The Trial Court though recorded the finding that the Petitioner being in the Territorial Army, would be covered by the term 'Army Officer', however, refused to grant remission in Court fees to the Petitioner on the ground that the Notification dated 2.3.1977, is only applicable to a retired or honourably discharged Indian soldier or a member of his family, who would be entitled to seek remission The Trial Court went to the extent of recording a finding that the Petitioner being a Lieutenant Colonel, could not be termed as a 'soldier' in the Indian Army. The Petitioner is, therefore, directed to pay the Court fees by making proper valuation, as per the order dated 18.4.2012 which is impugned in the present petition. 6. The Petitioner is, therefore, directed to pay the Court fees by making proper valuation, as per the order dated 18.4.2012 which is impugned in the present petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel Shri Bandiwadekar, would place reliance on the Government Notification dated 11.11.1965 and on Circular dated 14.12.1990, as also the Government Notification dated 2.3.1977 to contend that the Petitioner is entitled to remission. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Government Notification dated 2.3.1977 is in addition to and supplementary to the Government Notification dated 11.11.1965. The learned counsel would contend that by the said Notification dated 11.11.1965 the Indian Soldier or the member of his family was covered, by the subsequent notification dated 2.3.1977, the position is sought to be clarified, so as to include retired or honourably discharged Indian Soldier or a member of his family. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court has not considered the Notification dated 11.11.1965 and the Circular dated 14.12.1990 which has been issued by the State Government, but has only considered the Notification dated 2.3.1977 and held against the Petitioner and directed him to pay the Court fees by making proper valuation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that finding of the Trial Court that the Petitioner can 1. not be said to be a Soldier, does not stand to scrutiny. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has reiterated the case of the Respondents in the said Application Exhibit -82. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that since the Petitioner was in service at the relevant time, he was not entitled to the benefit of remission since the Government Notification dated 11.11.1977 postulates that such a remission can only be granted to a retired or honourably discharged soldier in the Indian Army. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In the context of the issue which arises in the above writ petition, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant extracts from the Government Notifications dated 11.11.1965 and 2.3.1977. The same are reproduced hereunder. “Notification dated 11.11.1965 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959). In the context of the issue which arises in the above writ petition, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant extracts from the Government Notifications dated 11.11.1965 and 2.3.1977. The same are reproduced hereunder. “Notification dated 11.11.1965 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959). The Government of Maharashtra hereby remits in the whole of State the fees payable in respect of any documents of any kinds specified in the First and Second Schedules to the said Act, which are or to be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Civil or Criminal Court by an Indian Soldier or a member of his family.” “Notification dated 2.3.1977 In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959), the Government of Maharashtra hereby remits in the whole of the State of Maharashtra the fees payable in respect of any documents of any of the kinds specified in the Schedule I and Schedule II annexed to the said Act, which are to be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Civil or Criminal Court by a retired or honourably discharged Indian soldier or a member of his family.” It would also be relevant to reproduce the Government Circular dated 14.12.1990 “No.KA 5/M/CR 1075/90 Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps M.S. Pune Date: 14/12/1990 Sub: Bombay Court Fees Act, Exemption from Payment of Court Fees to the Employees in Army/Retired from Army. CIRCULAR Govt. Notifications, Revenue and Forest Dept. No. CTF 1365/16678/N Dated 11/11/1965 and CTF 1772/83959/M1 Dated 2/3/1977 are enclosed for necessary action. Indian Soldiers/ Retired Soldiers and their family members are granted exemption from payment of Court Fees while filing cases before Civil or Criminal Courts. The Govt. has received complaints that in spite of this, the said exemption is not being properly implemented. Hence the said exemption should be properly implemented. If the same would not be properly implemented serious view will be taken by the Government. Sd/- (K.A. Satdive) Deputy Inspector General of Registration, M.S. Pune.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The Govt. has received complaints that in spite of this, the said exemption is not being properly implemented. Hence the said exemption should be properly implemented. If the same would not be properly implemented serious view will be taken by the Government. Sd/- (K.A. Satdive) Deputy Inspector General of Registration, M.S. Pune.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Reading of the notification dated 11.11.1965, discloses that an Indian Soldier or a member of his family is entitled to remission in the Court Fees which have to be paid in respect of the documents of any kind to be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Civil or Criminal Court. Thereafter, the Notification dated 2nd March, 1977 has been issued. By the said Notification, a retired or honourably discharged soldier or a member of his family has been held entitled to such a remission. As far as the Circular dated 14.12.1990 is concerned, the same has been issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Maharashtra State, Pune. The said Circular refers to both the Notifications dated 11.11.1965 and 2.3.1977 and states that in terms of the said Notifications, the Indian soldier/retired soldier and their family members have been exempted from payment of Court fees in respect of documents to be filed in Civil or Criminal Courts. It has further been stated that the implementation of the said exemption is not being carried out in a proper manner and that the Government has received complaints in that regard. The concerned authorities have been cautioned by the said Circular by stating that if the exemption granted is not properly implemented, then a serious note would be taken by the State Government. Hence, in so far as the Notifications are concerned, the first of which is of the year 1965, the same postulates that a Indian Soldier or a member of his family is entitled to a remission in payment of the Court fees. The subsequent Notification of 1977 only clarifies that even a retired or honourably discharged soldier would be entitled to such a remission. The subsequent Notification of the year 1977, therefore, can be said to be only clarificatory in nature and does not in any manner modify or amend the earlier Notification dated 11.11.1965. The subsequent Notification of 1977 only clarifies that even a retired or honourably discharged soldier would be entitled to such a remission. The subsequent Notification of the year 1977, therefore, can be said to be only clarificatory in nature and does not in any manner modify or amend the earlier Notification dated 11.11.1965. The matter is further clarified by the fact that the Government while issuing the Circular dated 14.12.1990 has referred to both these Notifications i.e. of the years 1965 as well as 1977 in the matter of cautioning the concerned department in respect of the implementation of the policy of remission which is incorporated in the said two Government Notifications. If the remission was to be restricted to a particular class of Indian Soldier, then there was no need for the Government to issue the Circular dated 14.12.1990 which as indicated above refers to both the Government Notifications and direct action to be taken in terms thereof. The policy of the State Government is to cover the Indian Soldiers as a whole and not to classify the Indian Soldiers, between the persons who are in service and the persons who have retired or have been honourably discharged. As indicated above, the Trial Court has totally glossed over the Notification dated 11.11.1965 as well as Circular dated 14.12.1990 and by merely referring to one of the Notifications i.e. dated 2.3.1977, has come to a conclusion that the Petitioner being in service at the time when he filed this suit, was not entitled to remission in payment of the Court fees. 10. The Trial Court, as can be seen, has gone a step further and though it held that being a part of Territorial Army, the Petitioner would be an Army Officer within the meaning of Army Act 1950 has gone to the extent of recording a finding that since the Petitioner is a Lieutenant Colonel, he cannot be termed as an “Indian Soldier”. This finding of the Trial Court in the teeth of the Army Act, 1950, is totally unsustainable and defies logic. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 has fairly conceded and stated that he would not urge the point to justify the finding of the Trial Court that a Lieutenant Colonel is not an Indian Soldier. This finding of the Trial Court in the teeth of the Army Act, 1950, is totally unsustainable and defies logic. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 has fairly conceded and stated that he would not urge the point to justify the finding of the Trial Court that a Lieutenant Colonel is not an Indian Soldier. It seems that the Trial Court has not approached the matter in the right perspective in the light of the underlying policy as contained in the two Notifications, of the entitlement of a person belonging to the Indian Army to the remission in payment of the Court fees. In my view, the Trial Court has erroneously not taken into consideration the Notification dated 11.11.1965 which has resulted in the Trial Court making a sub classification within the personnel of the Indian Army which is not the intent of the said Notifications. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur is required to be quashed and set aside and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 11. It is clarified that the Petitioner would be entitled to the remission in payment of the Court fees. In view of the said remission, the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in question as it is. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.