1 WP 7777.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7777 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner. .................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :05/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original defendant. The present respondent filed Suit for recovery of possession in respect of the house property. The said Suit is filed in the year 2003. The plaintiff led his Examination-in-Chief in the year 2006. Thereafter, various applications were filed for recasting of issues. The Court has also framed issues long back. When the matter was for the cross examination of the plaintiff, the defendant filed an application for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. Talekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when an objection to the jurisdiction is raised, the Court is duty bound to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. A duty is cast upon the Court to decide 2 WP 7777.2011 the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukund Ltd. V/s Mumbai International Airport and others reported in 2011 ( 2 ) Mh.L.J. - 936. 3. The learned counsel further contends that ex-facie the Civil Judge ( J.D.) does not have the jurisdiction in view of the valuation. The petitioner has produced on record the certificate issued by the competent authority showing the valuation i.e. the valuation is more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. The plaintiff is claiming his half share. As such the said Suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (J.D.) where the Suit is instituted. The Court ought not to have rejected the said application. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. 5. The Suit is filed in the year 2003. Thereafter, the application for temporary injunction was also decided. The plaintiff has also led his Examination-in-Chief. The issues were framed, thereafter re-casted and after a long slumber the present application was filed for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue on 11/08/2011. 6. No doubt, when an application for injunction is filed and the defendant raises the issue of jurisdiction, the issue 3 WP 7777.2011 of jurisdiction is required to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukund Ltd. [ supra ] has also observed in this regard. In the said case, even the defendant has not pressed the said issue but the Division Bench observed that it is the duty of the Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 7. In the present case, the application for temporary injunction is decided long back. Not only that the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue is also filed at belated stage when the Examination-in-Chief is filed. The plaintiff is already in the witness box. The Court has not opined upon the pecuniary valuation. It is the claim of the defendant that the suit property values more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. The same would be decided by the Court along with all other issues. 8. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has already stepped into witness box, has filed Examination-in-Chief and petitioner filed application after lapse of four ( 4 ) years, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court. 9. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7777.2011 4 WP 7777.2011