JUDGMENT 1. These Applications come up before the Court under Rule 133 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Rule 133 reads thus : “R.133 Adjournment of matter to Judge Any “ party desiring to have any question decided by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, whether disputed or not, adjourned to a Judge, may apply to the Prothonotary and Senior Master for such adjournment within four days from the passing of the order complained of. If the application is within time, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall adjourn the matter and put it on the board of the Judge in Chambers. If the party makes the application after the said period of four days, the Prothonotary and Senior Master may adjourn the matter to the Judge in Chambers if he is satisfied that the party had sufficient cause for not making the application in time.” 2. By an order dated 17 January 2008 a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal 270 of 2007 directed the Plaintiff to furnish security to the extent of Rs.200 Crores to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Initially by an order dated 29 January 2008 the Prothonotary merely accepted a security bond and undertaking of the First Respondent. This order was set aside by a Learned Single Judge on 1 July 2010. While construing the order of the Division Bench, the Learned Single Judge directed the Plaintiff to furnish security consisting of tangible assets of the value of Rs.200 Crores to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The order of the Learned Single Judge was confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench on 29 July 2010. A Special Leave Petition against the order of the Division Bench directing the furnishing of security was dismissed on 4 October 2010. The Plaintiff moved an interim application before the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time by a period of twelve weeks to furnish security. The Supreme Court by an order dated 16 November 2010 extended time by a period of two weeks. 3. Before the Prothonotary and Senior Master the Plaintiff relied on valuation reports of two valuers (i) A.V. Shetty – & Associates and (ii) Perfect Valuations and Consultants. The Plaintiff offered by way of security a total of thirteen flats which are owned by the two sons of the Plaintiff, Mr. Rahul Raheja and Mr. Ashish Raheja. 3. Before the Prothonotary and Senior Master the Plaintiff relied on valuation reports of two valuers (i) A.V. Shetty – & Associates and (ii) Perfect Valuations and Consultants. The Plaintiff offered by way of security a total of thirteen flats which are owned by the two sons of the Plaintiff, Mr. Rahul Raheja and Mr. Ashish Raheja. One set of seven flats has been converted into a single flat while another set of six flats has similarly been converted into a single unit. The valuation which was placed on the flats by A.V. Shetty & Associates was Rs.90.07 Crores and Rs.143.78 Crores. The second valuer, Perfect Valuations and Consultants valued the flats at Rs.92.65 Crores and Rs. 147.90 Crores. On the other hand, the Third Defendant relied on a valuation report of Rane Engineers and Surveyors. The valuer adopted a valuation of Rs.16.92 Crores and Rs.25.57 Crores. The Prothonotary and Senior Master accepted the contention of the First and Third Defendants that the valuation reports on which reliance was placed by the Plaintiff could not be accepted. While accepting the valuation report placed on record by the First and Third Defendants, the Prothonotary and Senior Master accepted a valuation of the flats offered as security at Rs.44.27 Crores. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff was directed to furnish additional security so as to make good the deficiency in order to fulfill the direction that the total security offered must be to the extent of Rs.200 Crores. 4. The Plaintiff as well as the Third Defendant moved two applications before the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 133 for placing the matter before the Court. Accordingly, these proceedings come up under Rule 133. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Third Defendant and the learned counsel for the First Defendant have at the outset submitted that the offer which was placed before the Prothonotary on behalf of the Plaintiff of thirteen flats belonging to the two sons of the Plaintiff must be rejected for the reason that the Plaintiff was directed to furnish security. In this connection reliance was placed on the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Rules and particularly on Rule 441. Hence, it was urged that security in the form of flats belonging to the sons of the Plaintiff cannot be accepted. In this connection reliance was placed on the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Rules and particularly on Rule 441. Hence, it was urged that security in the form of flats belonging to the sons of the Plaintiff cannot be accepted. This submission which has been urged on behalf of the First and Third Defendants cannot be accepted. The object of directing a party to furnish security is that a party for whose benefit the security is furnished must be in a position to realize the security in the event that the conditions for the invocation of the security are made out in an adjudication of the Court. This as a matter of fact was clearly the intention when the Learned Single Judge by his order dated 1 July 2010 directed that security should be furnished. The Learned Single Judge observed thus : The intention of passing such order directing “the Prothonotary to accept security to her satisfaction is that the Prothonotary and Senior Master must feel satisfied that the interest of the party which is sought to be protected by the order of this court is sufficiently secured.” 6. When an appeal was carried before the Division Bench, the order of the Court dated 29 July 2010 also clarified that the object of directing the Plaintiff to furnish security was “to secure the interest of the Defendants against any loss that the Defendants may suffer because of the operation of the ad-interim order” and that “the Plaintiff had to put forth some tangible property against which the Defendants can proceed, in the event he becomes entitled to recover the amount of loss from the Plaintiffs” Rule 441 on which reliance has been placed comes into operation if the security required to be furnished is of a bond to be given by a surety or sureties. In that case particulars of the name and address of each surety, and a description of the property which is offered for justification has to be filed with the Prothonotary. In other words, Rule 441 postulates an order of the Court requiring that security should be furnished of a bond to be given by a surety or sureties. The order of the Court does not fall within the purview of Rule 441. In other words, Rule 441 postulates an order of the Court requiring that security should be furnished of a bond to be given by a surety or sureties. The order of the Court does not fall within the purview of Rule 441. The object of directing the Plaintiff to furnish security was to protect the interests of the Defendant in the event that as a result of the order of injunction, a loss was suffered by the Defendants in respect of which restitution is ordered by the Court at a future date. It would be rather technical for the Court to hold that the security must be furnished by the Plaintiff in person. At the same time if security is sought to be offered on behalf of the Plaintiff by a third party, albeit the sons of the Plaintiff in the present case, the Prothonotary must be objectively satisfied that the security is capable of being realized in the event it is necessary to do so and that it is not encumbered. 7. In the present case, the Plaintiff sought to tender by way of security, two groups of thirteen flats, as noted earlier, belonging to his sons in a building known as Rajeja Legend at Worli. The agreements for sale under which the two sons of the Plaintiff have obtained title to the flats contain two conditions to which a reference would be in order. Clause 33(l) imposes a condition to the effect that the written consent of the owner must be obtained before the flat is transferred or assigned. The owner in the agreement is described as a company by the name of Raheja Universal Private Limited. Similarly, Clause 39 confers preemptive rights on the owner. Clauses 33(l) and 39 read as follows: “(l) TO transfer or assign the Flat Purchaser’s interest in or benefit of this Agreement until all the dues payable by the Flat Purchaser to the Owner under this Agreement are fully paid up and even after such payment, only if the Flat Purchaser has not been guilty of breach or non-observance of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and until the Flat Purchaser has obtained the Owner consent in writing to the same.” “39. The Flat Purchaser agrees that as and when they decide to sell their Said Premises (or shares in the event cooperative society/ company / condominium is formed) then in that event, the (Flat Purchasers shall offer the same to the Owners who shall have the right of first refusal to purchase Said Premises at the consideration mutually agreed between them at that point of time.” 8. Before these flats can be accepted as security in terms of the order of the Court, it will be necessary that the owner files an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master waiving the conditions which are stipulated in Clauses 33(l) and 39. The Court is informed that the present owner is a public limited company by the name of Raheja Universal Limited. The undertaking shall be filed by an authorized officer of the company which shall be supported by a resolution of the Board of directors sanctioning the filing of the undertaking in Court. 9. That leaves the Court with the question of valuation. The Plaintiff has relied on two sets of valuation reports. Both the valuation reports proceed to make a valuation on the basis of what is described as the saleable area. The built up area of the two sets of flats is respectively 6703 sq. ft. and 10,566 sq. ft. The built up area of these two sets is enhanced for the purposes of valuation to 12,868 sq. ft and 20,541 sq. ft. by including certain ancillary areas such as the lobby, servants room, servants toilet, common ’ ’ passage, common AHU, AHUs, niches and walls. The total plinth area is thereupon deduced to which is added a prorate interest in the common areas. The report of A. V. Shetty & Associates states that the fair market value of the property has been assessed based on local enquiries using the market value method and taking into account other factors including location, accessibility, distance and development such as infrastructure. The valuation report does not rely upon even a single sale instance. The second report of Perfect Valuations and Consultants is similarly based on saleable area as opposed to the built up area. The report relies on a solitary sale instance of a flat in a building described as Raheja Anchorage purchased by Godrej Industries Limited. The valuation report does not rely upon even a single sale instance. The second report of Perfect Valuations and Consultants is similarly based on saleable area as opposed to the built up area. The report relies on a solitary sale instance of a flat in a building described as Raheja Anchorage purchased by Godrej Industries Limited. The purchase price was Rs.43 Crores for a built up area of 2850 sq. ft. The valuation report does not disclose whether the sale instance was similar in terms of amenities, construction, location and other associated advantages. Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent submitted, as a matter of fact, that the two properties are not similarly circumstanced. But that is not an issue which falls for determination by the Court since it ought to have been considered by the valuer. The valuer has totally failed to do so. The Prothonotary and Senior Master was in the circumstances justified in not relying upon either the report of A.V. Shetty & Associates or Perfect Valuations and Consultants. 10. The First and Third Defendants have similarly relied upon a valuation report of Rane Engineers and Surveyors. The report relies on the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner, for the purpose of stamp duty of Rs.18,718/- per sq. ft. of built up area. Now it is settled that the ready reckoner merely provides an index for the revenue authorities for the purposes of levying stamp duty. Valuation either under the Land Acquisition Act or even in proceedings such as the present cannot be based on a ready reckoner. The report then relied upon four sale instances where the valuation of the property varied between Rs.18,845/- and Rs.19,347/- per sq. ft. The valuer adopted a rate of Rs.25,000/-. After giving a certain discount of Rs. 800/- per sq. ft. the valuer adopted a rate of Rs.24,200/- per sq. ft. The Prothonotary and Senior Master has principally accepted the report relied upon by the Third Defendant though without the deduction of Rs.800/- per sq. ft. The valuation report on which reliance has been placed by the Third Respondent is also open to the objection that it has failed to consider certain material issues. One of the sale instances upon which reliance has been placed is an adjoining building, RNA Mirage. ft. The valuation report on which reliance has been placed by the Third Respondent is also open to the objection that it has failed to consider certain material issues. One of the sale instances upon which reliance has been placed is an adjoining building, RNA Mirage. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff has produced before the Court a photocopy of an agreement to sell in respect of one of the premises in the building. The development in that case was under Development Control Regulation 33(7) which pertains to the redevelopment of cessed buildings in the island city of Mumbai. There is merit in the submission that the valuation of a property where redevelopment has taken place under Development Control Regulation 33(7) may not be at par with the valuation which is ascribed to a property, which to use a phrase of contemporary parlance is a free ‘ sale’ project. 11. In the circumstances, the Court is left with a situation where neither of the valuation reports on which reliance has been placed by the parties can be accepted. In this view of the matter, during the course of the hearing, I had indicated to the learned senior counsel that it would be in the fitness of things that if both the counsel suggest the name of an independent valuer; a valuer of integrity whose competence and expertise cannot be doubted. The Court made it clear that the direction to appoint a fresh valuer for the purposes of carrying out a valuation would be a direction of the Court, but it would be appropriate if the Court were assisted with the name of a valuer by the learned counsel. Both the learned counsel have accordingly suggested the name of Jones Lang Lasalle Properties Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. This would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 15 November 2010 is set aside. M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Properties Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. are accordingly appointed as valuers in order to carry out a valuation in respect of the flats belonging to Mr.Rahul Raheja and Mr.Ashish Raheja in the building known as Raheja Legend of which security is sought to be offered by the Plaintiff. The valuers are requested to complete the process of valuation within a period of two weeks from today. 12. The valuers are requested to complete the process of valuation within a period of two weeks from today. 12. The present proceedings shall stand disposed of in terms of the following directions : i) M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Properties Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. are appointed as valuers to carry out the valuation of the flats belonging to Mr.Rahul Raheja and Mr.Ashish Raheja in the building known as Raheja Legend at Worli; ii) The valuers are requested to expedite the process of valuation and to submit their report to the Prothonotary and Senior Master on or before 13 December 2010; iii) The costs of the valuation shall be borne by the Plaintiff; iv) Upon receipt of the report, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall pass fresh orders within a period of two weeks after furnishing to the parties an opportunity of being heard; v) The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to furnish photocopies of the title deeds of the flats in question which are in her custody and possession to the valuers. In addition, the parties would be at liberty within a period of one week from today to furnish any other material including sale instances to the valuers on which they seek to rely upon; vi) The Plaintiff is allowed to furnish security in the form of the residential flats to which a reference has been made earlier subject to the condition that (i) the – flat owners, Mr.Rahul Raheja and Mr.Ashish Raheja furnish an undertaking which shall be placed on the record of these proceedings within a period of one week from today that they shall not mortgage, lease, gift or deal with the flats in any manner whatsoever without further orders of the Court; (ii) M/s. Raheja Universal Ltd. shall also file an undertaking before the Court of a duly authorized officer, together with a resolution of the board of directors, stating that the company has no objection to the aforesaid flats being offered by way of security and that the company waives its rights under clauses 33(l) and 39 of the agreements for sale; (iii) The title deeds in respect of the flats shall continue to remain in the possession and custody of the Prothonotary and Senior Master; vii) In the event that the valuation report suggests any deficiency in the value of the security, the Plaintiff shall offer additional security so as to make good the total security of Rs.200 Crores as directed by the Division Bench. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall consider whether the additional security that has been offered by the Plaintiff is appropriate and proper. The proceedings shall stand disposed of in these terms.