1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7018 OF 2010 Shri Ashok Harichand Talreja ... PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Nitin Bhagchand Talreja & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. An interlocutory order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on 13.4.2010, directing an enquiry in respect of market value of the suit property is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and he has presented Special Civil Suit No.36/2009, wherein following reliefs are claimed : “ It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants for : 1. Declaration that, plaintiff is a owner of a house bearing Mun. No.225, Ward No.9 (new) i.e. Mun. House No.198, Ward No.15 (new) having P.R. Card 2 bearing Machine No.3164 and C.S. No.425, having an area to the extent of 1258.9 Sq.Mtr. having the following boundaries : On East : Open space of Z.P. Telephone Office and then Adm. Building West : Municipal Road South : Municipal Road, North : House of Manmohan Mishra situated within the Municipal limits of Parbhani. 2. Recovery of possession of the above-described house property. 3. Declaration that, the Will-Deed executed by Dr. Harichand Budhomal Talreja on dated 25.9.1989 deposited before the District Registrar, Parbhani, by virtue of which the plaintiff became the owner of the property described in claim clause-1 above; 4. Declaration that, the Will-Deed executed by Dr. Harichand Budhomal Talreja on dated 26.10.2006 in favour of defts. Nos.1 to 3 as illegal, un-enforceable and null and void. 5. Issue of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.__ not to transfer, alienate, modify, change or alter the situation of the suit house as described in claim clause No.1 above as well as Defendant No.1 is to be prohibited from creating any charge by way of mortgage or in any other way by virtue of which encumbrance is created over the suit house. 6. The costs of the proceedings and any other just and proper relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants in the interest of justice.” 3. On perusal of the plaint and the prayers contained therein, it transpires that prayer No.1 is in respect of declaration of ownership of the house property. The plaintiff has valued the suit taking the valuation of the suit property at Rs.5 Lacs on the 3 basis of sale deed alleged to have been executed somewhere in the year 1986. The suit is presented in the year 2009. Therefore, the valuation of the property of the year 1986 could obviously be not the valuation of the property on the date of presentation of the suit. The claim contained in paragraph No.1 of the prayer clause is governed by provisions of Section 6(iv)(b) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and in order to ascertain the valuation of the property, the trial Court has directed enquiry in respect of market value of the suit property. I do not see that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous or illegal. No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of any merits and hence, same stands dismissed. R.M. BORDE JUDGE fmp/wp7018.10