1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6299 OF 2008 Vitthal Shankar Mokashi through his power of attorney holder Mr.Shrirang Vitthal Mokashi .. Petitioner versus M/s.Sharada Centre, Partnership firm through its partners .. Respondents Mr.S.R.Page for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Notice has been served to the respondents. None appears for the respondents. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. An objection was raised to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees. By the impugned order, the trial Court has directed the petitioner to value the suit properly and to pay deficit court fees. The trial Court held that as far as court fees is concerned, the suit will be governed by section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and therefore valuation for the purposes of the court fees will have to be made accordingly. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no prayer for possession in the suit. He submitted that as far as nature of 2 the suit land is concerned, the same is an agricultural land and therefore the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay court fees on the market value thereof. 3. I have considered the submissions. By prayer clause (a) in the plaint, the petitioner is claiming declaration as regards his ownership in respect of the suit land. Therefore, section 6(iv)(d) of the said Act has been rightly held as applicable. Therefore, the petitioner will have to correct the valuation of the plaint and will have to pay court fees payable in accordance with section 6(iv)(d) of the said Act. The petitioner will have to pay 1/4th of the ad- valorem court fee payable on a suit for possession of the suit land on the basis of title. The valuation for suit for possession is governed by clause (v) of section 6 of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner will have to calculate the ad-valorem court fees payable as per section 6(v) of the said Act. The said section lays down the manner in which value of the property is to be calculated. 4. In the impugned order the Court has not specified any particular method by which value of the property for the purposes of section 6(v) of the said Act will be computed. What the petitioner is required to do under the impugned order is to correct the valuation of the suit and to pay the court fee payable in accordance with section 6(iv)(d) of the said Act. After valuation is made and court fee is paid, if necessary, by holding an enquiry under section 8 of the said Act, the trial Court will have to determine the correct 3 valuation for the purposes of court fees and consequently the quantum of court fee payable on the basis of the correct valuation. 5. It is obvious that if enquiry for determination of the valuation in terms of section 8 of the said Act is held, the trial Court is bound to give opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) Subject to what is observed above, petition is rejected. (b) Time of eight weeks is granted to the petitioner to comply with the impugned order by valuing the suit for the purposes of court fees in accordance with section 6(iv)(d) of the said Act of 1999 and for paying the court fee payable as per the said valuation. (c) After compliance is made by the petitioner, the trial Court will examine the valuation made by the petitioner and will thereafter proceed in accordance with the law in the light of observations made in this order. (d) There will be no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)