1 26 sa 689.08.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.689 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1689 OF 2008 Nivrutti Gunda Katawate deceased, L.Rs. Dattatraya & Ors. ..Appellants-applicants. Vs. Rajaram Navaji Ramoshi (Madane) deceased L.Rs. Yashoda & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.S.Karwande for the appellants-applicants. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the respondent nos.1A,1B,2,3B,5,6A &6B. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 08/12/2010. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below decreeing the suit filed by the respondents for redemption of mortgage and possession of the suit properties. The sole contention urged by Mr. Karwande, learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court namely, IVth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and hence the impugned judgment is without jurisdiction. In other words he submitted that the transaction between the parties exceeded 2 26 sa 689.08.doc pecuniary limits of the learned IVth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and hence the impugned judgment and decree is without jurisdiction and on this count alone the appellants are entitled to succeed in the present appeal. I have perused copy of the plaint. The claim mentioned in the plaint is Rs.10,000/-. In view thereof, Mr.Karwande invited my attention to the operative portion of the judgment of the trial court and more particularly paragraph (C) thereof to contend that the direction issued to the plaintiffs to deposit an amount of Rs.900/- in the court exceeds the amount of Rs.10,000/- and in view thereof, the Civil Judge, Junior Division had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, invited my attention to section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 and submitted that as on the date of suit the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge Junior Division was Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.10,000/- as contended by Mr. Karwande, learned counsel for the appellant. Having confronted with this, Mr.Karwande has not made any further submission. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 3 Consequently, the Civil Application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)