IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3679 of 2009 Between: L. Balamani @ Dundigal Balamani .. Petitioner AND A. Prathap Rao .. Respondent Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 29-07-2009 in I.A. No.254 of 2009 in I.A. No.225 of 2009 in O.S. No.66 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Gajwel and allow I.A. No.254 of 2009 in O.S. No.66 of 2009 as prayed for. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Govind, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the respondent. The revision petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.254 of 2009 in I.A. No.225 of 2009 in O.S. No.66 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel by order, dated 29-07- 2009. The revision petitioner/defendant filed the said petition with a request to try the questions of locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit as well as proper valuation and payment of Court fee in the suit as preliminary issues. The content of the rival contentions apart, the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, shows that she pleaded the value of the suit property to be not Rs.2,41,000/- as stated in the plaint, but to be Rs.5,00,000/- as per the present market value. The revision petitioner also contended in the written statement that separate Court fee has to be paid towards the value of the suit house sought to be demolished while seeking delivery of possession of the suit site. The revision petitioner was attempting to have the issues raised as preliminary issues to be heard before the trial commences on merits mainly on this ground and the trial Court in the impugned order held that it was not inclined to frame preliminary issues at that stage, as both parties will have an opportunity to lead evidence on the issues after the Court frames appropriate issues on the pleadings of the parties. Though the impugned order was not very specific about the reasons for refusing to frame and try preliminary issues, an independent assessment of the pleadings of the parties and the questions raised, shows that both parties will have to place their oral and documentary evidence on record concerning the market value of the suit property or the structures therein by the date of the suit so as to assist the trial Court to arrive at the amount at which the reliefs claimed in the suit should have been valued and on which value, the Court fee should have been paid. It will be the resultant conclusions that will be guiding the trial Court in knowing whether it has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. As the questions raised are not pure questions of law or questions which are not dependent upon any oral or documentary evidence of the parties, they could not have been tried in the abstract as preliminary issues and the conclusion of the trial Court that these questions be better tried in the suit along with other issues, cannot, therefore, be considered as improper or unreasonable and hence, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and the revision has to fail. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. But it should be made clear that either the impugned order or this order should not influence the trial Court in the determination of these questions in the suit on merits. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-10-2009 Svv