1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.98 of 2010 (Smt. Shashikala w/o Washudeoji Borkar and others v. Shri Prashant s/o Rameshrao Dhirde) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.G. Gharote, Advocate for Applicants. Shri A.V. Khare, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 15 th December, 2010 This civil revision application challenges the order dated 12-8-2010 passed by the learned 4 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, rejecting the application Exhibit 45 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 2004 by the defendants. The application Exhibit 45 was under Order 7, Rule 11(b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the defendants are before this Court. The Trial Court has considered the question as to whether all the defendants have proved that on the ground of alleged bar of jurisdiction as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, and has recorded the finding in negative. 2 Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right and proviso to it states that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. In view of this proviso, the question as whether the Court should make such declaration or not, can be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit. The argument based upon Order 7, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The reliance is placed upon the provisions of Section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and the provisions of Section 6(iv)(h-a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The point has not been raised before the Trial Court on the basis of these provisions. Hence, it does not find place in the order passed by the Trial Court. Apart from this, the objection regarding the payment of court fees has to be raised at the very first opportunity and that has not been done in the present case. The Trial Court has rightly rejected it. So far as the objection under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicants has tried to connect the said objection to the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The said objection has rightly been dealt with by the Trial Court. So far as the objection under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, the same is open to be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit. If the defendants have raised any other objection in 3 relation to jurisdiction of the Court, which was not putforth in the application under Order 7, Rule 11(b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Court, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to consider it in accordance with law at the time of final hearing of the suit. In view of this, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Trial Court. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl