1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10540 OF 2009 Anilkumar Laxmanrao Alkunte ...Petitioner vs. Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya And Sanshodhan Kendra Ltd.Solapur ...Respondent Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioner None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 4, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is the original defendant. The respondent filed a suit for possession in the year 2007. The issues were framed by the trial court. One of the issues framed was as regards pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court in as much as the contention of the petitioner was that the suit has been undervalued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. An application was made by the petitioner praying that the issue of jurisdiction be tried as a preliminary issue. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue of valuation and jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the said issue ought to have been tried as a preliminary issue. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. The application was made by the petitioner at a stage when the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was already filed by the respondent-plaintiff. By the impugned 2 order, the trial court has declined to treat the issue of jurisdiction and valuation as preliminary issue. As affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief is already filed, the trial court was justified in declining to exercise the discretionary power under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The issue has been kept open by the trial court and the same is bound to be decided in accordance with law along with other issues. Hence, no case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. JUDGE