1 CRA-781.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.781 OF 2009 Ravindra Bhausaheb Jadhav .... Applicant Vs. Pandit Vyankatesh Bhole .... Respondent S/Shri S.A. Sawant with Ketan Joshi for the Applicant. Shri Vilas Tapkir for the Respondent. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 15, 2010 P.C: By consent, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. This revision is directed against an order passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pimpri, Pune below Exhibit-17 in R.C.Suit No.97 of 2009 whereby he rejected the application filed by the defendant for framing preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. According to the applicant, the sale transaction was worth Rs.4,90,000/-, beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and, 2 CRA-781.09 therefore, issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court was required to be framed and decided before the matter could proceed further. This application was resisted by the plaintiff who submitted that the plaintiff had not sought any declaration and the reliefs sought were only to restrain the defendant by appropriate injunctions and that therefore the suit was properly valued. The learned Judge, without framing an issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the suit, proceeded to render finding on the objections raised by the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Bharat Shantilal Shah & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 622 wherein, in para 4, the Court held as under: It is clear from the law laid down by the Division Bench in its aforesaid judgment that when an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suits as the suits are barred by the law of limitation is raised, at the hearing of notices of motion wherein interim order is claimed, the Court is obliged by provisions of section 9-A of C.P.C. To frame preliminary issue as to the ground raised to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suits and proceed to decide that preliminary 3 CRA-781.09 issue and it is only on decision of that preliminary issue, that the notices of motion can be taken up for final decision. 3. In the light of what has been observed by the Division Bench, the learned trial Judge ought to have first framed the issue of jurisdiction, then heard the parties on that issue and then decided it on the basis of the arguments that could have been advanced before him. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the application Exhibit-17 is allowed. The learned trial Judge shall frame a preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court, hear the parties and decide the issue as early as possible and latest within a period of two months. 4. The revision application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)