1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9686 OF 2009 Arjun Padoba Phalane ...Petitioner vs. Sanjay Shankar Shinde & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S.Talkute for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the decree for possession has been passed against the petitioner. An application was made by the petitioner purporting to be an application under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 in the Appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the said application, the petitioner had prayed for appointment of the Government approved valuer for making valuation of the suit property as the petitioner desires to lead additional evidence in the form of valuation report. He submitted that at the time of final hearing of the Appeal, the prayer made by the petitioner for relying upon the report of approved valuer will not be considered and the petitioner will suffer prejudice. 2 I have carefully considered the submissions. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had made an application at Exh.72 praying for rejection of the plaint 2 on the ground that the suit is undervalued. Another application was made by the petitioner for appointment of Government approved valuer. The said application was made at Exh.75. While deciding the suit, the trial court rejected the said applications by observing that the applications are required to be disposed of in view of findings recorded in the Judgment. It is not in dispute that the orders passed below the applications at Exh-72 and 75 have been challenged by the petitioner in the Appeal preferred by him against the decree for possession. In view of section 105 of the said Code, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said orders in the Appeal. The result of granting application at Exh.24 on which impugned oder is passed would have been of allowing the application at Exh.75. While passing the impugned order, the learned District Judge has observed that the petitioner can always challenge the orders passed below at Exh.72 and 75 while arguing the Appeal and appropriate order can be passed. 3 Notwithstanding the impugned order, the petitioner can always argue at the time of hearing of the Appeal that the orders passed by the trial Court below at Exh.72 and 75 are erroneous. If the Appellate Court finds that the said orders were erroneous, the said Court is not powerless to pass an effective order based on the said applications. While rejecting the application at Exh.24, the Appellate Court has kept the challenge to orders below at Exh.72 and 75 open. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE