1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8275 OF 2009 Haresh Mansukhani and another ...Petitioners vs. Hemant Mansukhani and another ...Respondents Mr.S.J.Chaurasia i/b M/s.Ashoka Law Firm for the petitioners Mr.Kamal Sajal, Constituted Attorney for respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Constituted Attorney of respondent no.2 in person. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have taken an exception to the order dated 10 th September 2009 passed by the trial Court by which the following preliminary issues have been framed : i) Whether the plaintiffs have properly valued the suit claim ? ii)Whether on proper valuation it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court ? 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the written statement has not been filed by any of the defendants. He submitted that unless the issues are settled, there is no occasion for the trial Court to frame any issue as a preliminary issue. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pratima Sinha and others vs. Shashi Kumar Narain Sinha and others [2004 (13) SCC 599]. He submitted that therefore, the entire procedure adopted by the trial 2 Court is erroneous and preliminary issues could not have been framed. 3 I have considered the submissions. The impugned order has been passed on the application at Exh.37 taken out by the second respondent. In substance, in the said application it is contended that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees and if the suit is properly valued, the valuation will be Rs.8,75,000/- and above. The contention in the application is that in such a case City Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 4 Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,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 In the present case by making an application, the second respondent raised an objection to the valuation of the suit made by the petitioners. Therefore, section 8 of the said Act of 1959 will apply and the Court will have to hold an enquiry after permitting the parties to adduce evidence on the valuation of the suit. 6 It is settled law that the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. Under clause (b) of Rule 11 of the 3 Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 where the relief claimed in the suit is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, the Court can exercise the power of rejection of the plaint. 7 The effect of the impugned order is that the trial Court will have to hold an enquiry in accordance with section 8 of the said Act of 1959 and will have to determine the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. After determining the correct valuation, the Court will have to pass an appropriate order. It is obvious that if the trial Court finds that the proper valuation exceeds the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the trial Court will have to pass an order of return of plaint. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pratima Sinha and others (supra), there may be some justification in contending that the form of the impugned order is not correct. However, as section 8 of the said Act of 1959 mandates that the Court should hold an enquiry as regards valuation, no fault can be found with the impugned order. It is, however, obvious that the Court will have to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the aspect of valuation. 8 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. It is made clear that no adjudication has been made as regards the question of the valuation of the suit. JUDGE