IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4135 OF 2008 Between: S. Ramagovinda Reddy @ Govinda Reddy .....PETITIONER AND G. Paradesi (died) and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4135 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 17.07.2008 in I.A.No.389 of 2008 in O.S.No.266 of 1997, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, to amend the plaint as detailed in the petition, was allowed. 2. Heard. 3. The suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner is said to have been dispossessed from the suit schedule property. Hence, in the said suit, the present petition is filed for amendment of the pleadings to seek consequential relief of recovery of possession. The trial Court, vide the impugned order, while allowing the petition, directed the petitioner to produce the proof about the valuation of the suit schedule property for the purpose of payment of Court fee. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is ready to pay the Court fee on the value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, but the value cannot be determined on the present market rate of the suit schedule property. For that, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Koganti Sujani v. Vissamsetti Sankar Babu and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the acceptance of the value furnished by the Registering Authorities and in the light of decisions rendered above, the lower Court was right in accepting the valuation furnished by the Registering Authority as on the date of filing of the suit and it is immaterial whether there is sudden hike in the market value of the land subsequently. The value of the property as on the date of amendment, which is four years after filing of the suit, cannot be taken for the purpose of value of the suit as on the date of filing. Therefore, the lower Court rightly dismissed the application and I do not find any merits in the revision petition.” In view of the above decision, the order of the trial Court is modified permitting the petitioner to pay the Court fee on the relief of recovery of possession by producing the necessary certificate with regard to the valuation of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. 5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 17, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4135 OF 2008 February 17, 2011 [1] 2009 (2) ALD 141