1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4971 OF 2009 Shakur Khan s/o. Aziz Khan Pathan .. Petitioner Versus Ramesh S/o. Kautik Sonawane and another. .. Respondents --- Mr. D.S.Bagul, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent NO.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23/6/2009, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. 2. The respondent has filed a suit against the present petitioner and rest of the defendants. It is the contention of the respondent No.1/plaintiff that the original defendant NO.1 had forged a document 2 purported to be a sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant NO.1. Accordingly, a suit came to be filed for declaration that the said sale deed was null and void and the consequent sale deeds executed by the defendant NO.1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 were also null and void and as such, permanent injunction was also sought. 3. In the said suit, the present petitioner alongwith defendant Nos. and 3, who are his brothers, filed written statement and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. A preliminary objection was also taken under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that the suit was under-valued inasmuch as, the plaintiff had also sought cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant NO.1 in favour of the said defendants, which was valued at Rs. 2,20,000/-. It was contended that the court fee ought to have been paid on the said amount and as the court fee was not paid, the suit was liable to be rejected. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri Bagul, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner plaintiff, in effect,had also sought cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant NOs.2 to 4 by the defendant No.1, and as such, the court fee ought 3 to have been paid on the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. He submits that the suit was also under valued and if proper valuation was done, the suit would lie before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). 5. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition. 6. From the perusal of the averments in the plaint, it would reveal that the plaintiff has basically challenged the sale deed alleged to be executed by him in favour of the defendant NO.1. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the said document is forged by the defendant and as such, has sought a declaration for cancellation of the said sale deed dated 2/7/1977. Rest of the prayers in the plaint are consequential to the main relief. The court fee on the valuation of the said sale deed dated 2/7/1977 has been duly paid by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] /home/grt/9june9/wp