1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.10596 of 2009 Maruti Durgaram Bhosale ... Petitioner versus Mahesh Mallappa Gawade & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. U.R. Mankapure for the petitioner. Mr.G.M.Savagave for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 7th July 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19 November 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadhinglaj, rejecting his application under section 8 of the Bombay Stamp Act (for short “the Act”) 2. The order is interlocutory and needs no interference in exercise of a writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the order requires no interference. The petitioner is the original defendant. He challenged the valuation of Rs.2,35,366/­ made by the respondent and prayed to the court that the suit be valued at Rs.58,841/­ only. After hearing the parties, the Court rejected the application. 2 3. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act contemplates holding of an enquiry whereas enquiry has not been held. Section 8 says that if the Court is of the opinion that the suit has been wrongly valued, and after the application is made to the court for revaluation of any valuation made, the Court may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such enquiry as it thinks fit for such purposes. No form of enquiry is prescribed u/s.8 of the Act. Unless the parties choose to adduce any evidence mere hearing the parties would be a proper form of enquiry. Taking into consideration the fact that even the petitioner had not applied to the court that he wanted to adduce any evidence hearing the parties was proper form of enquiry. Undisputedly the parties were heard. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)