1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3124 OF 2009 1. Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Shelke & ors. ....Petitioners vs Balu Baburao Shelke. ....Respondent Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Prabhat Rajput i/b Mr. N.V. Vechalekar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has held that the Suit is wrongly valued above Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. The learned Judge has further directed either of the parties to make an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2 to the District Court for transfer of the Suit to the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, having jurisdiction to try the Suit. 3. The learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that some of the prayers relate to declarations and possession in respect of agricultural lands, the value whereof is less than Rs.1,00,000/-. There is, however, no discussion whatsoever regarding the fact that the Plaintiff has also sought orders for accounts of the income earned by the Defendants by inducting various persons in the chawl on the plot. This relief cannot be valued on the basis of the valuation of agricultural lands alone. The Plaintiff has, in fact, valued the Suit at the highest possible valuation. 4. The order was passed on an application under Section 9A read with Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was taken out on 23rd September, 2008. It is pertinent to note that prior thereto, the Respondent had made an application under Section 9A on 1st July, 2005 and an application under Order VII Rule 11 on 8th August, 2005. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a pursis stating that he was not pressing the application at that stage and that the issue may be decided along with other issues. 3 5. The effect of the earlier applications not being pressed has not even been considered in the impugned order. Prima facie, there is no reason to doubt the valuation of the Suit placed by the Plaintiff, especially in view of the prayer for accounts. The Respondent has not even indicated how the valuation is arbitrary or absurd. In these circumstances, the least that must be said in favour of the Petitioner is that the fresh application on which the impugned order was passed was an abuse of the process of the court and that the issue ought to have been decided after evidence was led and at the final hearing. The present application appears to have been made only with a view to delay the trial. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The issue as to jurisdiction will be decided at the trial of the suit. The learned Judge shall decide the issue of jurisdiction without reference to the impugned order in any manner. 7. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.