1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.47 OF 2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.48 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.48 OF 2003 Feroze H. Bamboat and Anr. .. Plaintiffs Versus Pesi Ardeshir Wadia & Anr. .. Defendants CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th April 2008 P.C. . This motion is by defendant No.2 and the request is to reject the valuation report of Government valuer dated 24th July 2006. The request is to substitute the Government valuer with other approved valuer to conduct fresh itemwise valuation and that the Government valuer presently appointed be restrained from acting 2 upon or in pursuance of the valuation report dated 24th July 2006. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for original plaintiffs and defendant No.2. 3. It is not necessary to set out the facts leading to the appointment of valuer pursuant to a consent order passed in two notices of motions bearing Nos. 151 and 152, as that are not in dispute. However, it is urged that most of the items proposed to be sold pursuant to the valuation report consists of articles which are furniture items, crockery and they belong and for part of estate of the defendant No.2’s grand mother who expired on 2nd February 1946. It is urged that the valuer has not stated anywhere that the items are damaged or will not fetch the proper price but still valuation report does not disclose any criteria recognised and adopted for valuation of such items. There are no reasons 3 assigned. There is an arbitrary exercise of the items being divided into seven lots for valuation. The valuer should have taken the concept of marketability and disposal in one lot of the items such as Sofa Set and dining table and chairs. Making an itemwise and lotwise valuation has not resulted in the correct value being recorded. Similarly, it is urged that there are works of Art, paintings etc. The valuer should have made a proper painting- wise valuation and clubbing them with other items in same lot has also resulted in an improper valuation. The last submission is that the valuer has failed to exclude certain items and as a result of the process undertaken by the valuer of the valuation itself, defendant No.2’s rights to bid for couple of items is frustrated. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff supported valuation report. He urged that the consent order is dated 4 22nd July 2005 in the aforesaid two motions. The valuation report is dated 24th July 2006 and the motion has resulted in the valuer not proceeding and disposing of the items. Even this motion has been repeatedly adjourned and it is pending in this Court from 3rd July 2007. It is contended that the entire motion is misconceived and not maintainable, inasmuch as, mere valuation does not frustrate the right to bid. Merely because for the purpose of valuation, the items are grouped in a lot does not mean that they would be sold in the same manner. No where has the valuer indicated that they would be offered for sale in that manner. In such circumstances, there is no prejudice to defendant No.2. 5. Having perused the consent order the affidavit in support and reply to the notice of motion and valuation report itself, to my mind, there is substance in the contention of original plaintiff- petitioners that no prejudice is 5 caused to defendant No.2. It is not as if he cannot bid or that valuation report presupposes the sale in the lots indicated for valuation. Ultimately, the exercise undertaken for valuation is by an expert and defendant No.2 does not dispute that the valuer is Government approved valuer. It is in such circumstances and when all that is urged is that another manner of valuation would have been more beneficial and proper, this is not a case for interference with the valuation undertaken and report submitted in that behalf. This matter is pending for considerable length of time. Further, the valued items are articles of furniture and other moveables including cutlery etc. They are lying in the state they are for decades together. In such circumstances, their expeditious disposal would be in the interest of justice as well as for the benefit of the rival claimants. In such circumstances, there is no substance in these motions. They are accordingly dismissed. 6 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)