wp2731.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2731/2011 Hansraj Pralhad Meshram and others -vs- Siddharth Murari Naik and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R. Badhe, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 16/06/2011. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27/01/2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, by which order the application at Exhibit-1 filed by the petitioner, who is the original defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.127/2005, came to be rejected. Regular Civil Suit No.127/2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein for declaration, permanent injunction and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 23/12/1988 purportedly executed by the mother of the plaintiffs. In the said suit the petitioners filed an application for framing of preliminary issues as regards the valuation of the suit and limitation. The contention of the defendants-petitioners herein was that the valuation of the wp2731.11.odt 2/3 suit was not proper, in view of the fact that the value of the suit property was not correctly mentioned in the plaint. It was further the case of the petitioners that the suit questioning the sale deed dated 23/12/1988 was beyond the limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act. The trial Court on the basis of the contentions of the petitioners, framed two preliminary issues as follows - 1) Is the suit under valued ? 2) Is the suit time barred ? Both the issues are answered against the petitioners. In so far as the issue No.1 is concerned, the trial Court held that merely because the suit property in question was converted into non-agriculture, after filing of the suit on 14/03/2005 (wrongly mentioned in the order as 14/01/2005), the suit filed on 29/01/2005 could not be valued on the said basis. In so far as the point of limitation is concerned, the parties led evidence, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were examined and they were also permitted to be cross-examined. The Court accepted the case of the plaintiffs that they became aware of the sale deed in the year 2004. The trial Court, therefore, also answered the said issue against the petitioners. In my view, considering the reasons mentioned by the trial Court for deciding the said two preliminary wp2731.11.odt 3/3 issues against the petitioners, the same cannot be found fault with. In so far as the sale deed is concerned, the trial Court in the impugned order has expressed serious reservations as regards the execution of the sale deed. The trial Court has observed that the sale deed was purportedly executed by the persons, who were minors at the relevant time. It is further observed by the trial Court that taking advantage of the mother of the plaintiffs, who was a widow and the plaintiffs being minors, the sale deed might have been got executed by the defendants. Be that as it may, as indicated above, having perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court, in my view, no interference is warranted in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE