1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3327 OF 2010 Tukaram Chhotuji Chandekar -: VERSUS :- Jagannath Jiwatuji Karemore and two others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2010. Heard Shri C.J. Sukhdeve, learned Counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and Shri S.A. Deole, learned Counsel for respondents. Shri Deole, learned counsel states that he is filing vakalatnama on behalf of respondents during the course of the day. Challenge is to order dated 20.04.2010 passed below Exh.29 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ramtek in Regular Civil Suit No. 47/2003. Shri Sukhdeve, learned Counsel states that the plaint was amended to seek declaration that sale deed dated 26.08.2003 is not binding upon the petitioner. In view of that amendment, objection to valuation has been raised and the objection is misconceived. According to him, Section 6(h)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act has no application here. 2 Shri Deole, learned Counsel has pointed out that in suit as filed originally claim is valued at Rs. 1200/-, but then basis thereof is not disclosed. He further states that in this background the impugned order passed below Exh.29 needs to be construed. According to him, there is nothing wrong with that order. Perusal of un-amended plaint reveals that the suit was then valued at Rs. 1200/- for declaration and permanent injunction. After amendment this valuation has not been changed. Only prayer for declaration in regard to sale deed dated 26.08.2003 has been added. In this background, the trial Court has directed compliance with provisions of Section 6(h)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The petitioner / plaintiff therefore, has to correct the valuation in accordance with the said provision. The trial Court has not given any direction to value the suit at particular amount. Petitioner has to correct valuation in accordance with the provisions of law in the matter. No case is made out warranting interference at least at this stage. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.