1 CRA-513.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.513 OF 2008 Smt. Shewantabai Genu & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. M/s. Balaji Developers & Ors. .... Respondents Shri V.Z. Kankaria for the Applicants. S/Shri Rahul Kate i/b S.M. Sabrad for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 21, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, holding that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. In the suit, only relief that the plaintiffs had claimed was an injunction to restrain the defendants, i.e., the present applicants from obstructing the plaintiffs possession of the property and also restraining the applicants/defendants from transferring, alienating or creating any charge on the suit property. 2 CRA-513.08 2. The plaint was valued in terms of Section 6(1)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and fixed Court fee was paid thereon. The applicants raised several objections to the tenability of the suit as well as its valuation. The applicants contended that suit for stay and injunction, without a prayer for declaration, was not tenable. Suit by a firm which was not registered was not tenable and also objected to the valuation of the suit. The learned trial Judge by his impugned order dealt with the only aspect of valuation of the suit and held that the suit was properly valued and within the jurisdiction of the Court. The question as to whether the valuation of the suit would change if relief of declaration is claimed, or if the relief of declaration should have been claimed was not before the trial Court, it cannot be raised before me. The learned counsel for the applicants very fairly brought to my notice a Judgment of this Court in The Mohatta Nagar Co-operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd v. M/s. Vishram Khimji & Sons and others, reported in 1994 (1) Bom.C.R. 444 in which this Court was considering a similar question and held that the suit was rightly valued under Clause 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 3 CRA-513.08 In view of this, the impugned order cannot at all be assailed. The revision application is rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)