1 Wp no.4506/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4506 of 2010 Pushpa Mohan Karmalkar & Anr ... Petitioners versus Pramila Shankarsheth Swar & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 14th July 2010 P.C. 1. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition as it is directed against an interlocutory order. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The respondent contended that the suit was not properly valued and therefore petitioner be directed to amend the valuation failing which the plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to amend the valuation. That 2 Wp no.4506/10 order is impugned in this petition. 3. The respondent had produced before the court evidence relating to the market value as determined under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act (ready reckoner published by the Government about market valuation in the locality). The Court firstly relied upon the said valuation. The court also appointed an independent court commissioner who verified the government valuation in the ready reckoner and has given the report about the valuation. In view of this, I find no error committed by the court in directing the plaintiff to amend the valuation. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)