1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5659 OF 2009 Ashok Gupta .. Petitioner versus Deepak Madhavrao Mankar .. Respondent Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate i/by Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole a/w Mrs.Jai V. Kanade for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent who is the original plaintiff. Considering the controversy involved in this writ petition, 2nd respondent being a co-defendant is a formal party. 2. An application was made by the petitioner purporting to be an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). By the impugned order, the said application at Exhibit 62 has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that if impugned order is to be set aside and application on which the impugned order is passed is to be allowed, the same will result in final disposal of the suit and therefore the remedy of the petitioners is under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the prayer made in the application at Exhibit 62 and submitted that the application was essentially filed to raise an objection to valuation of the suit made by the 1st respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions states that he is restricting the prayer in application at Exhibit 62 only to the extent of objection to the valuation of the suit and he states that he is confining the relief in the said application to the extent of holding an enquiry as contemplated by section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The statement is accepted. 4. I have considered the submissions. Section 8 of the said Act of 1959 reads thus: “8. If the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued or if an application is made to the Court for the revision of any valuation made, the Court may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose.” 5. Now the counsel for the petitioner has made statement that the application at Exhibit 62 be treated as an application under section 8 of the said Act of 1959. As objection to the correctness of the valuation has been raised by the said application, the trial Court will have to hold an enquiry in accordance with section 8 of the said Act of 1959. After holding an enquiry in accordance with law, the trial Court will have to pass an appropriate order. 3 6. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition need not be kept pending. The impugned order will have to be set aside as the petitioner has confined his prayer to holding of an enquiry under section 8 of the said Act of 1959. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) Subject to observations made above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. (b) The trial Court shall hold an enquiry under section 8 of the said Act of 1959 and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. (c) All contentions of the parties relating to valuation of the suit are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)