(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 7291 of 2008 Shrungmuni s/o. Shivaji Niranjan, deceased through L.Rs. : Smt. Lonabai w/o. Shrungmuni Niranjan & others. .. Petitioners. versus Waman Dodhuji Baste & 3 others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate, for the petitioners. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12th August 2008, passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 184 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1254/2000, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for deciding all the issues, including the preliminary issue. 2. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate (2) possession. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, an objection came to be raised by the respondents, that the dispute was between the Cooperative Society and its members and;, as such, it was only the Cooperative Court which had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Accordingly, preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction came to be framed. However, it appears that subsequently, the matter proceeded further and various applications were filed and disposed of. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by the present petitioners for deciding the preliminary issue along with other issues. It was contended on behalf of the present petitioners, that since the suit was of 2000 and the matter had proceeded further, preliminary issue should be decided along with other issues. The said application is rejected by the trial court. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that since the suit is of the year 2000 and suit had proceeded substantially, it would have been appropriate that all the issues ought to have been decided together by the trial court. 4. The preliminary issue, that is raised, pertains to the jurisdiction of the civil court. The said issue goes to the root of the matter. In the event, it is held that the civil court has jurisdiction, the court would be entitled to proceed further with the merits of the matter. On the contrary, if it is held that the civil court does not have jurisdiction, the learned trial Judge would not be in a position to proceed further in the matter. 5. In that view of the matter, no infirmity could be noticed in (3) the approach adopted by the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp7291