1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1734 of 2010 (Ashwinkumar Arvind Deshmukh v. Ajay Murlidhar Laddha and another) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri J.T. Gilda, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 29 th April, 2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is defendant, had raised preliminary objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction by pointing out that recourse to Section 6(v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act for the purposes of valuation of suit is incorrect. On the basis of this, necessary issues were also framed and then the Trial Court fixed the matter for recording of evidence on all the issues. At that stage, the petitioner-defendant filed an application at Exhibit 22 for deciding the issues of valuation and jurisdiction as preliminary issues. That application was opposed by the respondent. By the impugned order dated 2-2-2010, the Trial Court has rejected that application after noticing that all the issues can be decided together. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is upheld, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division will cease to have jurisdiction and then the evidence on merits recorded by it may lose its efficacy. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs on the other hand 2 argued that the suit is for only removal of encroachment and the suit is ripe for recording of evidence. He further argued that deciding a particular course of action is within the discretion of the Trial Court and this Court should not interfere in it. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction was raised at the earliest possible opportunity and it, therefore, requires to be decided as preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs is right in contending that in normal circumstances, the issues need to be decided together, but here adjudication of that issue has got bearing on jurisdiction and if the Trial Court records evidence on merits, that evidence may not be useful to the respondents/plaintiffs in case the matter is required to be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. In this situation, it will be appropriate to decide those issues as preliminary issues at the earliest possible opportunity. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for removal of encroachment. Hence the Court of 7 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, shall decide the issues regarding jurisdiction and valuation by giving parties necessary opportunity as early as possible and in any case by 30-9-2010. The impugned order is quashed and set aside for that purpose. Rule accordingly. No costs. Judge. pdl