1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2070 of 2010 (Nitin Mahadeorao Thorat v. Taibai S. Thorat and another) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 29 th April, 2010 Heard Shri L.A. Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, and Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. This Court has not issued any notice to the respondents, but then Advocate Shri Thakkar remained present for the respondents as per the instructions and he states that the power is also filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the provisions of order 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code are observed in breach in the present matter. He states that the Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot, does not possess jurisdiction in the matter and it also does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. Separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, pointing out that the valuation is not proper, is filed. The respondents thereafter filed an application Exhibit 17 for hearing of Exhibit 5 before hearing the application Exhibit 13 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioners filed application Exhibit 18 opposing that prayer and for considering their objections before taking up issue of temporary injunction. 2 The Trial Court has considered these applications Exhibits 17 and 18 together and by common order dated 22-4-2010 has decided to grant simultaneous parallel hearing on Exhibits 5 and 13. Exhibit 13 is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That order is assailed before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that mandate of opening part of Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is very clear and the relevant documents pressed into service before the Trial Court required it to record finding on issue of jurisdiction and also on issue of valuation before taking up the matter for grant of temporary injunction. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that sub-section (2) of Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the Trial Court to grant appropriate interim relief in urgent matters, and considering this provision, the Trial Court has decided to conduct joint hearing on Exhibits 5 and 13. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the impugned order. The judgments sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has found it necessary to consider Exhibits 5 and 13 together. Exhibit 5 is prayer for grant of temporary injunction, while Exhibit 13 is for rejection of plaint filed by the present petitioners. It is obvious that by joint hearing of both these applications, the Trial Court is doing justice to the parties. If it finds that it has no jurisdiction, it can not take cognizance of Exhibit 5. On the contrary, if it finds that it has jurisdiction, it can proceed to pass appropriate order on Exhibit 5. The issue of valuation of suit requires recording of some evidence. In these circumstances when the respondents/plaintiffs are insisting for grant of 3 urgent relief to protect their possession, view and approach of Trial Court cannot be labelled as erroneous or perverse. No case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Judge. pdl