1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.282 OF 2010 M/s. United Developers. .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Mohammed Kamil Ansari. .. Respondent -- Shri S. Nagpurkar i/by Bagla Dandekar & Co. for the Petitioner. Shri R.A. Thorat for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Considering the narrow controversy involved, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The Petitioner is the Defendant and the Respondent is the Plaintiff. An objection was raised by the Petitioner to the valuation of the suit made by the Respondent. An order was passed on 2nd September, 2009 the operative part of which reads thus:- “ORDER The Plaintiff is directed to value the suit claim on the basis of proposed construction cost of that admeasuring 400 sq. ft. by obtaining necessary certificate from authorized Architect and shall pay necessary court fees accordingly. Thereafter, if necessary order of return of plaint in case of valuation of more than Rs.50,000/- will be passed.” 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 12th November, 2009 passed by the trial Court. Material part of the order reads thus:- 2 “The report of valuation: As per said report the old demolished structure has been valued for Rs.10,000/-. So plff. is directed to value the suit claim accordingly and shall pay necessary court fee thereon by making addition/amendment in clause 18 of plaint before next date. The advocate for defendant objected the valuation report. At this stage defendant has no right to object it and the said issue of valuation to be decided at the time of trial by recording evidence. Defendant may raise issue of valuation challenging the report of valuer by filing additional W.S. if necessary. In view of said valuation the suit is within jurisdiction of this court. So the preliminary issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is now answered in the negative as suit is not beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this court.” 3. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find that the impugned order is inconsistent with the earlier order dated 2nd September, 2009. The direction issued under the order dated 2nd September, 2009 to the Respondent is to value the suit claim on the basis of the proposed construction cost of a flat admeasuring 400 sq. feet by obtaining necessary certificate from an authorized Architect. The Respondent/Plaintiff relied upon the valuation report dated 26th October, 2009. On plain reading of the said report, it is apparent that the valuation report does not give the proposed construction cost of the flat admeasuring 400 sq. ft. The trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the report shows that the old demolished structure has been valued at Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the trial Court by the impugned order directed the Respondent/Plaintiff to value the suit at Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, the impugned order is completely inconsistent with the earlier order dated 2nd September, 2009 which as of today has attained finality. 3 4. The Respondent will have to submit a necessary valuation certificate in terms of the order dated 2nd September, 2009 and on the basis of the certificate produced in compliance with the order dated 2nd September, 2009, he will have to value the suit claim. After considering the valuation made by the Respondent/Plaintiff, the trial Court will have to pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties. 5. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 12th November, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Respondent is granted time of eight weeks from today to comply with the order dated 2nd September, 2009. (c) After compliance is made by the Respondent/Plaintiff by valuing the suit claim in terms of the order dated 2nd September, 2009, the trial Court will pass appropriate order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (d) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. JUDGE