dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3398 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3398 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3398 OF 2006 Gopal Ramchandra Vaje Petitioner Vs. Tukaram Ramchandra Vaje & ors. Respondents. Mr.Sadashiv G. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the Respondents 1 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th December 2008. : 15th December 2008. : 15th December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings given by the two courts below, whereby both the courts, after considering the averments made in the plaint and the provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, held that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thereby returned the plaint to the plaintiff to be filed before competent court having jurisdiction. 2. The Suit is under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1968 for possession. It would be covered by Schedule I, Article 2 of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short, "Bombay Court Fees Act") and fixed at one half of the amount as prescribed under Article 1 is required to be paid. Considering the provisions of ( 2 ) the Suits Valuation Act, the same shall be the valuation for the jurisdiction. 3. The trial Court by detailed order dated 9.2.2005 rightly held that the defendants proved that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, after taking into consideration the oral, as well as, documentary evidence led by the parties. 4. There is material to show that the suit property was sold on 29.1.2003 for consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, the Sub-Registrar, Class I, on delegation determined the market value of the suit property after following due procedure of law including spot inspection and measurement. The said report is also part of record. The valuation comes to Rs.2,43,500/- as on 29.2.2003. That is also supported by an Officer of Sub-District Registrar, Class I, Raigad. 5. In view of this, it is very clear that the valuation of the suit property on the date of the filing of the Suit at Rs.2,000/- is incorrect. The determination and reasoning given by the court, therefore, is correct. The submission/report made by the Commissioner to determine the market value of the ( 3 ) property is well within the ambit of Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The Appellate court, therefore, rightly maintained the said order and by dismissing the Appeal. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction as arrived at Rs.1,21,750/- need no interference. 6. In the result, the conclusion as drawn that Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shriwardhan has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the Suit is correct and also the action of returning the plaint for presentation before the proper is also correct. 7. In view of this, the present petition is dismissed. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)