1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2009 1. Mr. Jose Belarmino Antao, S/o late Mariano Antao, r/o House No. E-39, Opposite Arcanjo Menezes Hospital, Rua Bernardo Da Costa, Margao, Salcete Goa. 2. Smt. Blaise Antao, wife of Mr. Jose Belarmino Antao, r/o House No. E-39, Opposite Arcanjo Menezes Hospital, Rua Bernardo Da Costa, Margao, Salcete Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Floriano Gambeta da Piedade Avila, S/o late Inacio Caetano de Avila, Resident of House NO. 198, Near Peoples High School, Mala, Panaji Goa. 2. Marilia Cunha e Avila, Daughter of Joaquim Joao da Cunha, Resident of House No. 198, Near Peoples High School, Mala, Panaji Goa. ( Since deceased represented as under ) 2(a) Shri Rui Caetano Sebastiao de Avila, S/o Floriano Gambeta da Piedade Avila, Resident of House NO.198, Near Peoples High School, Mala, Panaji Goa. ... Respondents Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Respondents. 2 Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 5 th AUGUST, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. In the midst of hearing learned Advocate for the petitioners states that he has realized mistake on the part of the defendants that averments which should be the foundation of their objection to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court are not appropriately pleaded. 3. Learned Advocate for petitioners therefore prays for setting aside impugned order for enabling the petitioners to withdraw the application dated 6.4.2009 by which defendants had moved the trial Court for framing additional issue, with liberty to file fresh and proper application for amendment of written statement in order to bring on record proper foundation for the objection as to valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 4.. Learned Advocate for the respondents objects to the prayer. 5. In the interest of justice, this Court is satisfied that such prayer made by the petitioners needs to be granted. If this step is not allowed now and it is later 3 on found that the suit was tried without proper valuation of the suit, and it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court it would render entire exercise fruitless. 6. The point of pecuniary jurisdiction goes to the root, and needs to be dealt with at an earliest stage. 7. Hence in the interest of justice, Rule is made absolute and following order is passed :- (a) The impugned order dated 1.7.2009 Exhibit 165/D is set aside. (b) Application dated 6.4.2009 filed in Trial Court for framing additional issue as to valuation is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to apply in the Trial Court for appropriate amendment in the written statement for raising the proper pleading as to correct valuation of suit property and as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. (c) In the event, such application for amendment is filed, it would be open for the Trial Court to decide such application on its own merit and according to law. (d) Parties are directed to bear own costs. A. H. JOSHI, J. at* 4