1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8063 OF 2010 Bhanudas s/o Marutirao Pawar .. PETITIONER VERSUS Uddhav s/o Bhanudas Pawar .. RESPONDENT Mr. A.C. Darandale, advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard. 2 Application tendered at exh. 94 by the original defendant / petitioner herein requesting the court to hold enquiry in respect of valuation of the suit has been turned down by the trial court in view of order passed on 13-7-2010. On perusal of the application it does not disclose as to what is the defect in respect of valuation committed by the plaintiff. Without disclosing any defect, the defendant wants the court to hold an enquiry in respect of proper valuation of the suit. Apart from this aspect, I have perused the plaint 2 annexed alongwith the petition. The suit is presented claiming partition and separate possession of the agricultural property as well as house property. Plaintiff has valued the suit in accordance with the provisions of section 6(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. As the suit instituted by plaintiff is in respect of partition and separate possession, for the purpose of arriving at proper valuation, the value of the suit is required to be determined in view of section 6(v) of the Act. There are rules framed in respect of determination of valuation in respect of the suits wherein the decree of possession is claimed. When the land is amenable for revenue assessment, valuation is required to be determined in accordance with said rules and the same shall be either 200 times or 400 times of revenue assessment. 3 In the instant matter, the plaintiff has arrived at valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and has paid court fees at 40 times of the assessment in respect of his share. I do not find that the plaintiff has committed any mistake in arriving at the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction or for the purpose of court fees. Objection raised, therefore, does not deserve any consideration. Apart from this aspect, as stated above, application at exh. 94 does not spell out any specific objection which the defendant wants the court to take into consideration. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 3 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8063.10.odt