1 W.P. No10652 of 2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10652 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 1st April, 2010 passed below Exh.1 in R.C.S. No.479 of 2008 passed by the 2nd Joint C.J.J.D., Sangamner. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property is worth Rs.1,75,000/-. He further submits that the sale deed is of Rs.1,75,000/-, which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of 2nd Joint C.J.J.D., Sangamner. Therefore, the petitioner raised preliminary objection to the 2 W.P. No10652 of 2010 jurisdiction of the trial Court. However, the Court below reached to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction since the plaintiff has claimed 1/6th share in the property and therefore, it has jurisdiction to try the suit. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the Court should return the suit to the plaintiff to present it before appropriate forum. He invited my attention to the relevant provisions to contend that the Court trying the suit is having pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.1,00,000/- and if the suit property is worth Rs.1,75,000/-, then only C.J.S.D. Is competent to try the suit. He further submitted that ad-voleram court fees is also not paid by 3 W.P. No10652 of 2010 the respondent. Therefore, the said objection was raised before the trial Court. Since the trial Court has rejected the contention of the petitioner herein, he preferred appeal, which is pending before the appellate Court. 3 Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the impugned judgment and order and averments in the plaint, it is clear that the respondent No.1 plaintiff is claiming 1/6th share of the suit property. The trial Court took into consideration the pleadings in the plaint and the contention of the respondent – plaintiff herein that his claim is only for 1/6th share and concluded that the court has jurisdiction to try the 4 W.P. No10652 of 2010 suit. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before framing the issues, the trial Court was not correct to arrive at the conclusion that respondent is entitled for 1/6th share. This is prejudging the issue before the trial Court. Therefore, he would submit that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is premature. 4 In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner needs to be rejected in view of the pleadings in the plaint that the respondent NO.1 herein – original plaintiff, is claiming only 1/6th share int he suit property. Even, ultimately if the suit is allowed, the plaintiff would not get more than 1/6th share of the suit property 5 W.P. No10652 of 2010 since the trial Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings in the plaint. The concerned court will grant either 1/6th share or below that. However, in the light of the pleadings, there is no possibility that the Court will grant more share to the plaintiff. A possible view has been taken by the trial Court. No interference is warranted. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise this point at the time of argument in the suit. In the light of above, writ petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 01.12.2010. PLK/*