SRJ wp-1309-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1309 OF 2010 M/s. Yadav Associates .. Petitioner V/s. Gulmarg Co-operative Housing Society & Others .. Respondents. Mr. P.L.Bhujbal i/b. Shri P.M.Gore, for the Petitioner. Mr. Subhash Jadhav, for Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th MARCH,2010. P.C. : 1] Heard Learned Counsels for the parties. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the Petition, the same is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. The Petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. Written Statement was filed by some of the Defendants raising an objection to the valuation of the suit made by the Petitioners. The 3 rd Respondent made an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for rejection of the plaint on various grounds including the ground that the suit had not been properly valued. By the impugned order dated 27 th October, 2009, the Learned Trial Judge held that the claim in the suit has been unvalued. He, therefore, SRJ wp-1309-10.sxw 2 directed the Petitioner to correct the valuation of the suit and to pay the deficit Court Fee by the next date. The Trial Judge has not dealt with the other objections raised in the application at Exhibit 20 filed by the 3 rd Respondent. 2] After having heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I find that the impugned order is erroneous. An objection was raised to the valuation of the suit made by the Petitioner for the purpose of the Court Fees. The Trial Court was duty bound to hold an enquiry under section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as the said Act) after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Only after holding such enquiry, the Trial Court could have recorded a finding as to whether the suit was not properly valued. There is no finding recorded by the Trial Judge as to which provision of the said Act was applicable. There is no finding recorded about the correct valuation for the purposes of Court Fees. The impugned order has been passed without holding a proper enquiry. 3] Hence, I pass the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 27 th October, 2009 is quashed and set aside; (ii) The Trial Court will hold an enquiry in accordance with section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1959 for the purpose of dealing with the objection to the valuation of the suit. The SRJ wp-1309-10.sxw 3 enquiry to be held as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date on which a writ of this order is received by the Trial Court. (iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (iv) After holding an enquiry and passing appropriate order, Trial Court will take up application at Exhibit 20 for hearing. (v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J. ) SRJ wp-1309-10.sxw 4