1 wp368.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2011 Hirabai W/o Ambadas Jadhav ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Sow. Sumanbai Raosaheb Palaskar and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.V. Langhe, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.K. Kakade, Advocate for respondent no.1. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Langhe for petitioner-original defendant and Advocate Mr. Kakde for respondent no.1. 2. Looking to the nature of the order, which this Court proposes to pass, service upon other respondents is dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel states that an application styled as under Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code has been decided long after the issue of temporary injunction was finally decided. According to her therefore that application was rendered infructuous. In the alternative and without prejudice, it is contended 2 wp368.11 that in counter claim as filed by the present petitioner had sought basically the relief of declaration that sale deed in favour of respondent no.1 is bad. Other two reliefs were consequential and hence, were not decisive for the purposes of valuation of suit. Attention is invited to the provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) of Bombay Court Fees Act to state that in suits for declaration that any sale of immovable properties void, suit needs to be valued at one half of ad valorem fee leviable on the value of the property. It is urged that valuation as disclosed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff is Rs. 56,000/- and accordingly, same has been used by petitioner. It is further contended that though there is prayer for re-conveyance of property back to the petitioner, that valuation is also fixed at Rs. 56,000/- accordingly. 4. During arguments, learned counsel has fairly pointed out assertions as contained in written statement filed before the trial Court. 5. According to Advocate Mr. Kakade in counter claim three reliefs are claimed and in written statement, the story is of settling the sale consideration at Rs. 1,70,000/-. According to him, in this view of the matter, application of mind by trial Court is neither erroneous nor perverse. As the valuation exceeds Rs. 1 Lacs, the 3 wp368.11 suit and counter claim is already transferred to Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and as per his instructions, the necessary court fees is also paid by present petitioner. 6. After hearing respective counsel, I find that though application was styled as under section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code, the trial Court could have looked into the dispute under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, only because of mention of Section 9-A in the body of application, the application at Exhibit-41 could not have been rejected. Trial Court has noticed that the present petitioner in counter claim has disclosed correct valuation of transaction to be Rs. 1,23,000/-. It also found that there was statement of witness Supdu that real transaction of suit property was for Rs. 1,70,000/-. In written statement at Exhibit-49, present petitioner (defendant no.11) has urged that she agreed to purchase the said land for consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. 7. It is therefore obvious that the findings of trial Court about valuation can not be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction. 8. No case is made out warranting interference, Petition is rejected. 4 wp368.11 9. At the request of learned counsel for petitioner, the proceedings in Civil Suit are expedited and the trial Court shall attempt to decide the Civil Suit itself on merits at the earliest. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp368.11