ash 1 cra901.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2010 M/s. Arun Bhoomi Corporation & Anr. .. Applicants Vs Shri Jairaj Devidas & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate i/by Shri R.P. Walvekar for the Applicants. Shri S.G. Karandikar for Respondent Nos.1 to 13. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants (Original Defendant Nos.21 and 22) and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 13 (Original Plaintiffs). 2. By the impugned order dated 31st July, 2010, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application made by the Petitioners at Exhibit – 36. By the said application, it was contended that the valuation of the suit filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 13 made on the basis of 200 times of the assessment of the suit property was erroneous inasmuch as on the date of the institution of the suit, the suit land was a non-agricultural ash 2 cra901.10 land as there was an order passed on 14th December, 2007 by which the suit land was converted for non-agricultural use. Therefore, it was contended that the valuation of the suit ought to have been made on the basis of the market value of the suit property which was about Rs.5 crores. The learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order observed that the order converting the suit property into a non- agricultural use was nullity and that the order has been stayed in an appeal preferred by the original Plaintiffs. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the original Plaintiffs pointed out that in the appeal, the said order has been set aside. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants states that even otherwise the valuation of the suit is not proper considering the reliefs claimed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Application made by the Revision Applicants at Exhibit – 36 has been rejected by the impugned order. In the said application, only one objection has been raised on the basis of the order dated 14th December, 2007 by which non-agricultural user of the suit property was allowed. Now the said order has been set aside. In the application at Exhibit-36, no other contention has been admittedly raised. Therefore, on the basis of the order dated 14th December, 2007, now there is no merit in the ash 3 cra901.10 contentions raised at Exhibit-36. If the Applicants or the Defendants desire to raise any other objection to the valuation of the suit, they will have to do so at an appropriate stage by appropriate proceedings. Suffice it to say that no interference is called for with the impugned order. 5. Subject to what is observed above, the Revision Application is rejected. ( A.S. OKA, J )