( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2010 Baby Peter Patole & others PETITIONERS VERSUS Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation & others RESPONDENTS .... Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 13th February, 2009, rendered by the learned District Judge – II, Ahmednagar on office note of the Superintendent of the District Court. By that order, the learned District Judge held that the appeal was maintainable in the District Court. 2. The petitioners are original plaintiffs. Their suit for declaration and injunction was decreed, holding that they are owners and possessors of half share in respect of the suit property. Admittedly, they valued the suit property at ( 2 ) Rs. 10 lacs. They also had properly paid court fees as required under section 6 (iv) (d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. It appears that the original defendant No. 1 i.e. Municipal Corporation preferred an appeal. The appeal was being registered when objection was raised as regards jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. It is well settled that pecuniary jurisdiction will be dependent on the valuation made by the plaintiff and as determined by the Court as and when any objection is raised. In the trial Court, there was no objection raised regarding the valuation of the suit property. It is obvious that the valuation made by the plaintiffs was acceptable the half share as claimed by the plaintiffs would be, therefore, valued at Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs). The jurisdiction of the District Court is limited to entertain the appeal to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is quite contrary to the settled legal principles and must be set aside. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The ( 3 ) impugned order is set aside. The learned District Judge is directed to remit the appeal to the High Court for consideration. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp147-10