:1: :1: :1: SRP. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6855 OF 2007. Dattatray Ramchandra Tamhankar. ..Petitioner. Versus. Laxman Pandurang Tamhankar since deceased by his L.Rs. ..Respondents. --- Mr. S. G. Deshmukh for the petitioner. CORAM: S.B.MHASE,J. CORAM: S.B.MHASE,J. CORAM: S.B.MHASE,J. DATE: JANUARY 9, 2008. DATE: JANUARY 9, 2008. DATE: JANUARY 9, 2008. ORAL ORDER. ORAL ORDER. ORAL ORDER. 1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Initially the suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division. It was tried by the Civil Judge, Junior Division. One of the issues in the said suit was regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit. The order of dismissal of the suit was challenged by the plaintiff before the District Court. The District Court considered the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction and while setting aside the decree, remanded the matter to the Civil Judge, Senior Division. However, later on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division was increased and therefore the Civil Judge, Senior Division again transferred the suit to the Civil Judge, Junior Division and thus again the suit has come before the Civil Judge, Junior Division. :2: :2: :2: 2. Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh submits that earlier the suit was decided by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and now also the same Court, viz., the CJJD, is having the jurisdiction, therefore the findings which were recorded by the CJJD earlier shall be treated as valid findings and the Appellate Court be directed to decide the said appeal in respect of rest of the issues only. 3. In my opinion this submission cannot be accepted, because one thing is certain that at the time when the suit was decided by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division earlier, the Civil Judge, Jr. Division had no jurisdiction. Subsequently the pecuniary jurisdiction of the CJJD is enhanced and as a result of that, now the suit has come to that Court, viz., the CJJD. Therefore, now there will be valid jurisdiction from the date of enhancement of jurisdiction and findings which were recorded by the Civil Judge, Junior Division when it had no jurisdiction cannot be held to be the findings of the proper Court in the technical sense. Under these circumstances now it will be proper for the Civil Judge, Jr. Division to decide the said suit on its own merits. At the most the parties may choose to pass a pursis before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division that they do not desire to lead additional evidence :3: :3: :3: and the matter may be decided on the earlier recorded evidence. But the course of action as suggested by learned counsel - Mr.Deshmukh cannot be accepted in view of the statutory provisions and more specifically the legal-technical aspect involved in the matter. In the circumstances, this Court refrains to entertain the petition. Petition is rejected. (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)