1 wp 5263.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5263 OF 2011 Jubedabegum W/o Abdul Quadar Kazi, Age : 75 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Dharur, at present R/o Balepir Amrai, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed, Through her Special Power of Attorney Holder, Jilani Jainuddin Khatik, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Dharur, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ashok S/o Limbaji Jadhav, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril. & Business, R/o Dharur, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. 2. Ramesh S/o Raghunath Komatwar, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Agril. & Business, R/o As above. .. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. 2 wp 5263.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner has filed counter claim seeking relief of declaration. The Court suo-moto framed preliminary issue of valuation and jurisdiction. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has suo-moto without any objection directly framed preliminary issue in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and had directed the parties to adduce evidence. 3. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the Court was of the view that the valuation of the property is not proper, then the Court could have directed the enquiry U/Sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Necessary enquiry first ought to have been conducted, then only the question of framing of issue would arise. 4. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent 3 wp 5263.11 supports the order passed and states that the parties can adduce evidence and from the said evidence valuation of the property can be culled out. 5. As per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the court fees value and the jurisdictional value has to be the same in certain suits. If the Court is not satisfied with the valuation made, then an enquiry can be conducted in view of the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act read with provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act. In the present case, this exercise has not been resorted and directly an order is passed to frame preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. 7. In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court shall direct to conduct an enquiry under the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act and thereafter shall decide about the pecuniary jurisdiction. 8. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11