1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4867 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.G.S.Shembole, advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.07.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant who had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of a land which is assessed to a land revenue. The trial Court initially vide order dated 2.2.2011, directed the plaintiff to value the suit as per suit for possession and had granted one month's time to correct the valuation, failing which the plaint shall stand rejected, provided further time for correction of valuation is not extended. The 2 plaintiff thereafter filed an application seeking correction in the valuation on 2.3.2011. The said application was opposed by the defendant. The trial Court allowed the said application. The said order is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Shembole, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the earlier order passed on Exh.1 was a conditional order. The Court could not have extended the time after lapse of one month. Further the valuation is not done as per provisions of the Bombay Court fees Act, required for valuing the present suit. According to the learned counsel, the suit is for declaration of ownership and as such the same is required to be valued U/s 6(iv) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the pleadings. The suit is for declaration of ownership and injunction. The land is assessed to the land revenue. In light of that the valuation made by the plaintiff vide application Exh.81 can not be faulted with. Moreover, the application is made within one 3 month of the order passed. Even otherwise, the Courts have power U/s 148 of the C.P.C. to extend the time. 5. In view of the above facts, I do not see any error committed by the trial Court in allowing the application Exh.81. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.07.07.2011. asp/office/wp4867.11