IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4777 and 4778 OF 2010 BETWEEN Palla Appalnarasa. …PETITIONER AND Killada Pentamma and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. S.R. SANKU Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - COMMON ORDER: Defendant No.4 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction being O.S.No.68 of 2006 filed applications being I.A.Nos.180 and 208 of 2008 before the trial Court praying for valuation of the suit schedule properties to be assessed and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and decide the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit respectively. 2. The said applications were moved by the petitioner by contending that the value of the suit schedule property is much more and if properly valued the suit would be beyond the purview of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The application in I.A.No.180 of 2008 was rejected by the Court below in view of Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act as well as on the ground that the trial has already commenced and is coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1 and at this stage, the application cannot be entertained. In view of rejection of I.A.No.180 of 2008, I.A.No.208 of 2008 was also rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have allowed the applications and that deliberately proper valuation has not been made by the plaintiff to keep the suit within the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili. 5. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2006 and after commencement of trial and recording of evidence of P.W.1 and marking of Exs.A1 to A18, the present applications are moved in the year 2008. Apparently, the applications are moved by one of the defendants to delay the disposal of the suit and at a belated stage. Secondly, the Court below rightly followed Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and declined to go into that question at this stage. I am not satisfied of any error on the part of the Court below in passing the impugned order. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to urge all his contentions as permissible under law at the time of final disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 24, 2010 DSK