1 cac3.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 3 of 2011 IN Civil Revision Application (st) No. 16 of 2011 WITH Civil Revision Application (st) No. 16 of 2011 Mr. Santosh Chandrakant Mutha & ors. ... Applicants v/s. Shobha Govoind Bansode & ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.P.Kulkarni for the applicants. Mr. S.G.Kudle for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 08, 2011. P.C. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing Civil Revision Application. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. In so far as Civil Revision Application is concerned, heard Counsel for the parties. Admit. 2 cac3.11.sxw 3. By consent taken up for final hearing. 4. The application arises out of the order dated 9th June, 2010 vide which the application filed by the present applicant for framing a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction has been rejected. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that from the perusal of the plaint itself, it would reveal that dispute is between the members of Society on one hand and Society on the other. He, therefore, submits that learned trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that suit was exclusively triable by Co-operative Court and as such beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He further submits that merely because an application for temporary injunction was not filed, could not have been ground for rejection of the application. 5. Shri Kudle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the contrary submits that since the suit is based on fraudulent activities of the defendant, it is only the Civil Court that will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 6. From the perusal of the pleadings I find that issue as to whether the 3 cac3.11.sxw Civil Court had a jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question arises for consideration in the present suit. Merely because an application for temporary injunction is not filed, cannot be a ground for not framing the said issue. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner shall not insist that the said issue be decided as a preliminary issue and do not object if the said issue is also decided alongwith other issues. 7. In that view of the matter, petition is partly allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to frame an issue regarding jurisdiction as requested in the application below exhibit 22. However, it is made clear that said issue will not be decided as a preliminary issue but would be decided alongwith other issues framed in the suit. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. (B.R. GAVAI, J)