1 WP 7418.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7418 OF 2011 Kamalbai W/o Motiram Bhambale Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Khairi Plot Area, Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Dinkar S/o Sopanrao Thite Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Warud (Nu), Tq. Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Sau. Anita W/o Ramesh Ghusale Age : 28 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Malegaon, Tq. Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. 3. Smt. Yamunabai W/o Sopanrao Thite Age : 68 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Warud (Nu), Tq. Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.T.Veer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Chavan, Advocate for Resp No.1 to 3. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/11/2011. 2 WP 7418.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent/original plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the property bearing new municipal House No. 2631. The present petitioner raised an objection vide application [ Exh. 32 ] and a preliminary issue was framed regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Court held that the market price of the suit house was not more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and so the Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Certificate produced by the petitioner from the Sub Registrar’s office showing the market value of Rs. 2,05,193/- was disbelieved on the ground that this valuation is of the year 2011, whereas the Suit is filed in the year January, 2008. 3. Mr. Veer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the valuation of 2011 is not considered, still there is a Certificate of the year 2007, which shows that the valuation was more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Court has not made an enquiry as is required under the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act [For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. On this count itself, the 3 WP 7418.2011 - [ J ] impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. K.S.Chavan, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the valuation has to be considered on the basis of the averments in the plaint. There was nothing on record to show that in January, 2008, the valuation of the suit property was more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. In such circumstances, no error is committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel contends that the Certificate of 2011 could not have been the basis for the valuation of the suit property as in January, 2008. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned order. 6. The Certificate produced by the petitioner shows the valuation as in the year 2011, which has rightly not been considered for ascertaining the valuation of the suit property as in January, 2008 i.e. the date when the Suit was filed. There was nothing on record for the Court to come to the conclusion that the valuation of the suit property was less than or more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. In such circumstances, the Court should have resorted to an enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act, so also Sections 8 and 9 of the Bombay Court 4 WP 7418.2011 - [ J ] Fees Act. 7. In the present case, the trial Court has not conducted any enquiry. When a dispute exists regarding the valuation, the Court should have resorted to the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Bombay Court Fees Act read with Section 8 of the said Act. 8. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The trial Court shall decide the issue about the pecuniary jurisdiction afresh after conducting an enquiry as contemplated U/s 8 and 9 of the Bombay Court Fees Act read with Section 8 of the said Act. 9. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 7418.2011 - [ J ]