1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRA No. 97/2010 The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Sangrampur Vs. Ghanshyamdas Thakurdas Dhoot (dead) through Lrs. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. V. M. Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. Sabook, Adv. for respondent no.1(a) CORAM ; B. P. DHARMADHIKRI, J. DATED : 21st October, 2010. Heard Advocate Deshpande for the petitioner and Advocate Saboo for respondent no.1(a)-Caveator . Respondent-Caveator amended plaint and sought removal of encroachment along with constructed structure thereon. After this amendment the petitioner/defendant filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and contended that suit as fled was not properly valued. The Trial Court had rejected that application. The said rejection is questioned in this Civil Revision. Advocate Deshpande contends that the trial Court has proceeded on erroneous assumption that respondent 2 no1-plaintiff was seeking restoration of possession of agricultural land. Holding accordingly because of erroneous belief the application for rejection of plaint came to be dismissed. Advocate Saboo has supported the order. I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order no doubt mentions that respondent/plaintiff was seeking possession of agricultural land. The finding may be erroneous but then it does not show that respondent- plaintiff was seeking possession of non-agricultural land. In any case here suit was already filed, was decided and in an appeal filed by present petitioner there was remand and after remand amendment was sought by plaintiff and after that amendment, application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been filed. Perusal of the application shows that valuation of construction sought to be removed by plaintiff which is allegedly to be more than Rs. ten lakhs is stated to be a ground for seeking rejection. It is apparent that the valuation of encroachment is not relevant in this matter. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter as I do not find any jurisdictional error, in proceedings under Section 115 of C.P.C. The revision is rejected. No costs. The petitioners are however permitted 3 to raise grievance again after final adjudication of the suit. JUDGE ambulkar