C.R. No. 2200 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2200 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.3.2009 Harpreet Singh and another .. Petitioners v. Gurpreet Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.4.2008, whereby in a petition filed under Sections 50 to 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1987, (for short, `the Act') petitioner No. 2, who is not keeping good health, has been directed to appear in person. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners raised argument to the effect that Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 50 of the Act for the reason that the same could be filed in Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction and any order passed by the learned court below would be without jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that such a plea was not raised by the petitioners before the court below and in the absence thereof, they should not be permitted to raise the same before this Court. However, during the course of arguments, it was put to learned counsel for the parties as to whether they want the issue of jurisdiction to be decided by this Court or let the Civil Judge (Senior Division) decide the same at the first instance on the basis of the plea raised by the petitioners, keeping in view the fact that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the case. It was consented by both the parties that the matter may be referred to the learned court below for consideration of the issue regarding jurisdiction to entertainment of a petition under the Act. Accordingly, without opining on the merits of the impugned order C.R. No. 2200 of 2008 [2] passed, the matter is remitted back to the learned court below for considering the contentions to be raised by the parties regarding jurisdiction of the court to entertain a petition under the Act. The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned court below on 21.3.2009. It is further directed that till such time, the issue regarding jurisdiction is decided, the direction of the learned court below for appearance of petitioner No. 2 shall not be given effect to. The revision petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.3.2009 mk