1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4471 of 2011 M/s OM Shri Mainani Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukeshkumar Mainani and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. H. Chandurkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 11 th November, 2011. Heard. The respondents had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner. According to the petitioner-defendant, the said suit was not tenable and was liable to be dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the trial court for framing the preliminary issues on the point of jurisdiction and limitation. The trial court, by an order dated 16th August, 2011 allowed the application and framed the preliminary issues in regard to jurisdiction, court fees and limitation. Since the parties were not tendering any evidence on the preliminary issues, the trial court directed the defendant to lead evidence to prove the preliminary issues which were framed on the prayer made by the petitioner. The order dated 20.8.2011 is challenged by the petitioner by this petition. The trial court has rightly held that the petitioner was required to lead evidence to prove the preliminary issues which were framed on the prayer made by the petitioner. Since it was the case of the petitioner that the trial court will not have jurisdiction 2 to entertain and decide the suit and the suit was not properly valued, it was for the petitioner to lead evidence on the assertion made by the petitioner in this regard. It is only after the petitioner tenders the evidence to show how the suit is not maintainable or the same is not properly valued, the plaintiff-respondent would be required to lead evidence. The order of the trial court appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.