VINEET SARAN, J.

(1) THE respondent No. 3 filed Civil Suit No. 399 of 1986 for partition of a residential house jointly owned by plaintiff-respondent No. 3 and the defendant-petitioner. In his written statement, the defendant-petitioner raised an issue with regard to under-valuation of the said property. A preliminary issue with regard to the valuation of the suit was framed by the trial court.

(2) BY the order dated 27. 9. 1988, the learned Additional Civil Judge decided the preliminary issue and held that since the valuation of the suit property was determined on the basis of the annual rental value as assessed by Nagar Mahapalika, the same was justified. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial court, the defendant-petitioner filed a revision before the District judge, Allahabad, which was dismissed by order dated 16. 3. 1989. Hence this writ petition.

(3) I have heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and have perused the record.

(4) THE main contention of Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since the trial court had called for a report from the Amin-Commissioner and there was no objection filed to the said report by either of the parties, the trial court ought to have relied on the valuation given in the said report, instead of assessing the valuation of the suit on the basis of the rental value of the property. The trial court as well as the revisional court have accepted valuation of the suit determined on the basis of the annual rental value of the suit property, which principle has also been accepted by this Court in the case of Mitthoo Lal v. Gopal Chand, AIR 1979 All 226 [LQ/AllHC/1979/119] .

(5) IN my opinion, there is no illegality in the orders of the courts below. The valuation of the suit has been determined by the courts below according to twenty times the up-to-date annual rental value of the house (property) as assessed by the Nagar Mahapalika, which is one of the ways of determining the valuation. The same cannot be said to be wrong.

(6) FOR the reasons given above, the orders of the courts below do not warrant interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

(7) SINCE the suit was filed in the year 1986 and nearly 16 years have passed. The proceedings of the suit were stayed vide interim order dated 20. 7. 1989 of this Court. It would thus be desirable that the trial court decides the suit expeditiously.