1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3226 OF 2011. Smt. Geetabai w/o Ravindra Denge. .Vrs. Smt. Chandradevi wd/ o Chandiramji Wadhawani and Others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. P.S.Sadavarte, Advocate for petitioner.) -0-0- CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 11 th July, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 07.4.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karanja (Ghadge), by which order the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, came to be rejected. The petitioner herein is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.75/2005 filed by the respondent No.4 herein for specific 2 performance of the agreement dated 21st May, 1999, the consideration mentioned in the said agreement was Rs 80,000/- (Rs. Eighty Thousand only). The respondent has accordingly valued the suit and paid the court fees. The petitioner filed the instant petition on the ground that the respondent No.4 herein i.e. the plaintiff, who is also seeking a declaration in respect of the said sale deeds entered into between the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter in favour of the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 and therefore the suit would have to be accordingly valued for the said purpose. The defendant No.1 has also raised the issue of limitation. The Trial Court has rejected the said application by the impugned order by recording a finding that the consideration mentioned in the agreement of which specific performance is sought is Rs 80,000/-(Rs. Eighty Thousand only). The suit would be therefore within its pecuniary limits. It appears that, by way of prayer clause (C-1), the plaintiff has sought a 3 declaration in respect of the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter in favour of the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6. In my view, the plaintiff, would be at liberty to urge the contentions raised in the above petition at the time of hearing of the above suit and if such contentions are raised the Trial Court, needless to say would decide the same in accordance with the law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE scd//