JUDGMENT :- Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007. passed by the district Judge. Malegaon in Appeal, which came to be dismissed. The Appeal was filed challenging the Order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Malegaon in R.C. Suit No.87 of 2005. 3. The controversy in the petition is regarding valuation of the suit property for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The suit was filed in respect of land admeasuring 88.47 sq. mts. The Trial Court passed the order dated 15.10.2007 valuing the suit property at Rs.ll.58.505/- with directions for return of the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the proper court upon payment of required Court fees on the basis of the said valuation, against which the Appeal was preferred, wherein the impugned order came to be passed. Pertinently, the petitioner had valued the suit at Rs.2.000/-. 4. In pursuance of an order of this Court dated 19th June. 2007 in writ petition No. 1372/2006. on an earlier occasion when the matter had travelled to this court, this court was pleased to remand the matter to the Trial Court with directions to hold an inquiry under Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. Pursuant thereto. an inquiry report was filed by the Sub-Registrar valuing the suit property at Rs.70.776/-. 5. Obviously, there is huge difference between valuation of the sub registrar, which is Rs.70.776/- and the valuation adopted by the Trial Court which is Rs.11,58,505/-. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has not considered the valuation report of the Sub-registrar, who has valued the suit property at Rs.70,776/- and that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the Court fees on the basis of this valuation and the impugned order has been wrongly passed. The petitioner has also referred to a Sale Deed in favour of one Bapu Sukhdeo Bagul, wherein the consideration of the suit property is shown as Rs.61.000/-. The learned Trial Judge has arrived at the valuation of Rs.11,58,505/-, primarily on the basis of the Special Civil Suit No.70/2002 wherein the valuation of the suit property is taken as Rs.11,58.505/-. 6. On going through the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the Appeal Court. The learned Trial Judge has arrived at the valuation of Rs.11,58,505/-, primarily on the basis of the Special Civil Suit No.70/2002 wherein the valuation of the suit property is taken as Rs.11,58.505/-. 6. On going through the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the Appeal Court. I find that the report of the sub-registrar who had valued the suit property at Rs.70,776/- has apparently been rejected by the courts below without assigning any reasons therefor. The petitioners are seeking to impugn the orders of the Trial Court and the Appeal Court mainly on the basis that once the report of the sub registrar, who is an independent person. is on record, the courts below could not have brushed aside the same and his valuation ought to have been accepted. 7. The record reveals that the issue of valuation arose from an application filed by the respondents taking exception to the valuation of the suit property by the petitioner in the plaint. However, the position as it now stands, is that the respondents have withdrawn the said application and are supporting the case of the petitioner, which I find rather curious. I do not rule out a tacit understanding between the parties in so far as it relates to valuation of the suit property is concerned. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the withdrawal of the said application and the fact that no reasons have been assigned by the trial Court and/or Appeal Court as to why the report of the sub-registrar has not been accepted. I find that though the findings of the trial Court or Appeal Court cannot be said to be perverse, it would be necessary for the trial Court to give reasons as to why the report of the sub-registrar cannot be accepted. 8. It is noted that the Report of the Sub-Registrar is as a result of a specific direction of this court in Writ Petition No. 1372 of 2006 to hold an inquiry in respect of the valuation of the suit property for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. In my view, when the report of the sub-registrar was on record, it was imperative for the courts below to assign reasons for rejecting the same. In my view, when the report of the sub-registrar was on record, it was imperative for the courts below to assign reasons for rejecting the same. However, at the same time, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same so as to deprive the government of its revenue, in terms of court fees. Moreover the result of the valuation has also a direct bearing on the presentation of the plaint in appropriate court having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 9. In this view of the matter, I deem it fit to remand the matter to the Trial Court with directions to the Trial Court to hold a fresh inquiry in the matter under Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and if necessary call for a fresh report from the Sub-Registrar or any other person if it so deems appropriate and allow the parties to lead additional evidence, if they so desire. All contentions are kept open. I am conscious of the fact that the matter has already been remanded by this Court on an earlier occasion. However. in my opinion the facts of the case do warrant such remand again. 10. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Trial Court. The Trial Court to make fresh inquiry and pass necessary orders within four months. The Trial court to specifically assign reasons in respect of acceptance/rejection of the report of valuation of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit, as also other aspects relating to the valuation. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 30.06.2008 at 11.00 a.m .. 11. The petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.