: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.157 OF 2009 Girjabai Bapusaheb Wangde & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Vijayalaxmi Sadashiv Nayak ... Respondent Mr.Ashish S. Naik for Appellants Mr.R.A. Thorat for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 6, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 28.4.2008 by which the trial Court has returned the plaint to the plaintiff-appellant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presenting the same to the proper Court. The plaintiff had valued the suit filed for possession at Rs.33,750/-. This valuation was arrived at by the plaintiff by contending in the plaint that the monthly lease rent was Rs.225/- and by multiplying the same by 150. 2. The trial Court while considering the submissions of the parties held that the suit has been wrongly valued and that the City Civil Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The reasons mentioned by the City Civil Court for arriving at this conclusion are, in my opinion, correct. The trial Court has : 2 : considered the submissions on behalf of the plaintiff that in an earlier suit filed in 1989 by the respondent in respect of the same property, the suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/-. However, the present suit has bee filed in 1997 and in view of the increase in the prices of property in Mumbai, the Court has found that the market value of the suit property could not be Rs.33,750/-. The trial Court has also observed that there was no valuation report placed on record by the plaintiff to indicate that the market value was less than Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court has considered the submissions of both the parties and also the fact that the rent obtained was Rs.834/- per month which would indicate that the market value was much more than Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court has rightly therefore directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff. 3. Appeal dismissed.