1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5393 OF 2009 Ramesh Ganesh Kenge ... Petitioner V/s. Deepali Vijay Patukale ... Respondent Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. A.P. Garge for the Petitioner. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 13th April, 2009 by which the petitioner s application for proper valuation of the suit plot has been rejected. The petitioner contended that in the suit for partition, the property involved was worth much more than Rs.90,000/- as claimed by the Plaintiff and therefore sought appropriate orders from the court regarding the court fees to be paid for the present suit. A valuation report was also 2 placed on record which the petitioner had obtained in respect of the suit plot. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for partition and possession. Under Section 6 sub- section (vii) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, in a suit for partition and separate possession, the court fee which is required to be paid is according to the value of the share of the plaintiff in respect of the suit which is instituted. In the present case the valuation report indicates that the property is worth much more than Rs.90,000/- and that the plaintiff s share would be several times more than that amount. The plaintiff has paid court fees by valuing the suit at Rs.90,000/- only. 3. The trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner by observing that the plaintiff s valuation must be accepted. While doing so, the trial court has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna 3 Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad & Anr. [AIR 1987 SC 2085]. 4. It appears that the trial court has not considered the entire Judgment of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has observed that the Plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation sought for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. However, it has also observed that where it appears to the court that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable or that the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. In the present case the only reason given by the trial court for discarding the valuation report is that the suit was filed for partition and possession of the property. 5. In my view, this is not a sufficient reason for discarding the valuation report. The trial 4 court ought to have, on the basis of the material on record, considered whether the valuation report ought to be accepted. If the valuation report was not to be accepted, the court should then have given cogent reasons for discarding the same. In the present case the trial court has erred by not carrying out the aforesaid exercise. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to hear the application filed by the petitioner afresh. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. .......