1 wp1043.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1043 of 2011 Mrs. Hamida Husensab Almel ... Petitioner v/s. Mr. Jafer Mohammed Siraj Attar ... Respondent Mr. Vishwajeet Mohite for the petitioner. Mr. M.J. Patil and Amogh Karandikar for respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 08, 2011. P.C. The petition impugns the order dated 3rd January, 2011 vide which the learned trial Judge has decided the preliminary issue and directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation as per the provisions of Bombay Court Fees Act and to make payment of requisite court fees. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred inasmuch as the only relief claimed by the petitioner was for an injunction simplicitor and a such the Court fees as payable would be as per the clause 6(iv)(j) of 2 wp1043.11.sxw the Bombay Court Fees Act. He, therefore, submits that impugned order is not sustainable in law. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v/s. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 in support of the proposition that for determining the court fees, only the averments in the plaint can be looked into. 3. Shri Karandikar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on the contrary submits that since the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned. 4. No doubt that the learned Counsel is right in relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in support of proposition that the valuation of the suit has to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint. However, it is also to be noted that if upon the perusal of the averments in totality, it can be noticed that the plaintiff has utterly undervalued the suit, itt is always open for the learned trial Court to direct him to correctly value the suit and 3 wp1043.11.sxw pay the deficit court fees. The perusal of the averments in the plaint would reveal that the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that suit in question would be governed by provisions of clause 6(iv)(b) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The learned trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons in support of findings in that respect. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)