1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10494 OF 2009 Ramsing Pratapsing Rajput ...Petitioner vs. Algonda Bharamgonda Patil and another ...Respondents Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for the petitioner Mr.Rahul Kulkarni for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2 The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor and the respondents are the decree holders. A suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the immoveable property was decreed on 28th August 2006. Relevant part of the decree reads thus : 3 Plaintiffs are directed to get execute the sale deed from the defendant by paying total consideration amount as per the market value of the year 2000. Plaintiffs are entitled to deduct the amount paid to the defendant as earnest money from the exact market value of the suit land of the year 2000 and to pay the remaining amount as per the market value of the year 2000. 4 If defendant has failed to execute the sale deed within stipulated time, then plaintiffs to get it executed through Court 2 Commissioner. Prior to that Plaintiffs shall pay the remaining consideration amount as per the market value of the year 2000 to the defendant or deposit it in the Court. 3 In execution application filed by the respondents, reliance was placed on the market value as reflected from the ready reckoner prepared for the purpose of payment of stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act,1958. An objection was raised by the petitioner to the said application by contending that the market value of the suit property was much more than what was suggested by the respondents. An application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to lead evidence by summoning the witnesses for production of certain documents. The prayer was made as the petitioner was desirous of adducing evidence as regards the market value of the suit property of the year 2000. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 4 I have heard submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the operative part of the decree under execution shows that the respondents will have to pay total consideration as per the market value of the suit property in the year 2000. The petitioner raised a dispute as regards the correct market value of the suit property. Considering the peculiar nature of the decree under execution, the executing Court will have to do the exercise of determining as to what the exact market value of the suit property in the year 2000. The respondents have placed reliance on the market value shown in the ready reckoner. The law on this aspect is very clear. The ready reckoner cannot be an evidence of market value, in as much as the ready reckoner is prepared as a guideline only for the purpose of payment of stamp duty 3 under the said Act of 1958. 5 As stated earlier, the executing Court will have to determine the market value by permitting the parties to adduce evidence. Hence, impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 13th August 2009 is quashed and set aside. ii)The learned trial Judge is directed to decide as to what was the exact market value of the suit property in the year 2000. The learned trial Judge will give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence as regards the market value. It is obvious that the respondents-decree holders will be initially given an opportunity to adduce evidence and petitioner will be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the trial court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. iii)Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE