1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 586 OF 2011 Babasaheb Kondu Jahagirdar & Others ...Petitioners Versus Bashir Babasaheb Jahagirdar & Others ...Respondent Mr.S.D.Dharmadhikari for the Petitioner Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal for the Respondent CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 4th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent no.1 has filed the suit for certain reliefs against the present petitioners who are the original defendant nos.1, 3 and 5. There are some other persons who are styled as defendants. After the filing of the suit, the aforesaid petitioners filed an application below Exhibit 41 praying that the plaint be rejected as there is no cause of action. That application has been rejected by Order dated 19.5.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2 Barshi, District Solapur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge). 2. I have gone through the record. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the aspect of joint family is absent as per the Muslim law and therefore the institution of the suit itself is incorrect and contrary to the well settled provisions of law. As to on what basis the respondent no.1 is claiming rights in respect of the property is set out in paragraph nos.2 to 5. The impugned order discusses the point involved and that the learned Judge has ultimately rejected the stand of the present petitioner. 3. In my view, the learned trial Judge was right in rejecting the said application as the stand on the basis of which the respondent no.1 is claiming right in the property in question is required to be gone into and it can’t just be set aside without giving an opportunity to the respondent no.1 to prosecute the case. 4. In so far as the payment of court fee by the respondent no.1, the aforesaid petitioners have raised the contention that the suit is not 3 properly valued. The learned Judge, has by impugned order observed that it could be done at the stage of trial. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it will be open for the petitioners to advance submission before the learned Judge at the stage of framing of issue and pursuade the learned Judge to frame an issue in that behalf. 5. The learned Judge shall consider whether an issue as to imporper valuation of suit is required to be framed. If the learned Judge frames issue as indicated above, the learned Judge shall decided the said issue in accordance with the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2(2) of CPC. 6. In substance, no interference is required in the impugned order. Application is required to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER Application is dismissed at the stage of admission with the aforesaid clarification. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) 4