1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2728 OF 2010 (Vee Kay Cotsyn Limited .v. The Liquidator and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri P.D. Kothari, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 19TH JULY, 2011. Heard. The trial Court has rightly by the order dated 16.04.2010 directed the plaintiff to value the suit for Rs.19,46,54,000/- as per the pleadings in para 5 of the plaint and pay requisite Court fees thereon as per law. It appears that by the said suit filed by the plaintiff/ appellant, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 were having no right, power or authority to sell the machineries and assets of the Mill which belong to the plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant further sought a declaration that the tender notice published by the defendant No.1-the Liquidator was illegal and improper and restrain the defendants from acting upon the said tender notice. An injunction was also sought by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 restraining them from selling or transferring the machineries and assets of the Mill which belong to the plaintiff. The value of the suit property, according to the plaintiff, was Rs.19,46,54,000/- as per the pleading in para 5 of the plaint. It was found by the trial Court in an application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint that the plaint was under valued as the same did not fall within the ambit of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 2 The learned Single Judge by the order dated 17th June, 2010 disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. The learned Single Judge found that the total worth of the machineries and assets were shown to be Rs.19,46,54,000/- and since the appellant was seeking the protection against the prevention of monetary loss, the suit was covered by the provisions of Clause 7 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and was not covered by the provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act of 1959. On reading of the plaint, it appears that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and needs no interference. At this juncture, Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Counsel for the appellant states that it is wrongly mentioned in one of the paragraphs of the plaint that the suit property is worth Rs.19,46,54,000/-. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the valuation of the property is less than that. If that be so then the appellant would be free to seek an amendment to the plaint in accordance with law. However, the order passed by the trial Court on 16.04.2010 cannot be found fault with. Since the LPA is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.