1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2010 Indian Financial Association of the Seventh Day Adventists ...Petitioners Versus Shree Kaluram Seetaram Dhole & Others ...Respondents Mr.Neel Mohan Pungaliya for the Petitioner Mr.P.J.Pawar for the Respondent No.9, 12 to 18 and Respondent No.11, 19 to 23. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 19th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Perused the order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.716 of 2008 filed by the respondents in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune. 2. It appears that the petitioners claim that the suit is under valued and 2 therefore they filed the application before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, for rejection of the plaint on account of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of C.P.C. 3. In my view, in order to have the plaint rejected for non-payment of proper court fees, the court has to determine as to the correct valuation of the suit on the basis of the averments in the plaint and that the court will have to provide opportunity to plaintiff to pay deficit court fee and if that order is not obeyed then plaint can be rejected. In the present case, the petitioner straight way made an application to this court for rejection of the suit as undervalued. In my view, the petitioner should have first approached the Civil court making a grievance of under valuation and then if the respondent did not comply with the same , approach this court. No interference is required in this petition. 4. If at all the petitioners claim that the suit is undervalued, the petitioners can file appropriate application setting out reasons therein, calling upon the court to decide the correct valuation of the plaint and correct amount of court fee to be paid. Once that exercise 3 is carried out and if the court below passes an order in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to value the suit and directs to pay the court fee at a particular amount and if the respondent no.1 does not comply with the said order, question of rejection of the plaint may arise. With aforesaid clarification, petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 5. In view of the above, Special Civil Suit No.716 of 2008 to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)