1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8564 OF 2006 Kashinath Sidaram Dhulubulu ...Petitioner vs. Mahaling Sidaram Dhulubulu & Ors ...Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the petitioner Mr.Vijay Killedar for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent is the original plaintiff. The rest of the respondents are not necessary parties in view of the limited controversy involved in this petition. The petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The preset petitioners made an application before the trial court contending that that the suit has been improperly valued for jurisdiction and court fees. It was contended that if the suit would have been correctly valued the Civil Judge Junior Division, Miraj could not have entertained the suit. On 19 th October 2005 an issue as to pecuniary jurisdiction was ordered to be decided as a preliminary issue. The preliminary issue has been answered by the impugned order dated 15 th July 2006 by directing the first respondent-plaintiff to 2 deposit deficit court fee on a sum of Rs.25,000/-. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that after the writ petition was filed, the suit has been transferred to the court of Civil Judge Senior Division. The learned counsel for the first respondent states that he has no instructions in that behalf. The statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions will have to be accepted. Hence, now the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court does not survive. However, the issue as regards the correct valuation made for the purposes of the court fees will survive . On plain reading of the impunged order, I find that this issue requires detailed consideration as the finding on this aspect by the trial court is not satisfactory. Now, the suit has been transferred to the proper court having pecuniary jurisdiction. Now the finding on the issue of valuation for court fees will have to be recorded by the court having the jurisdiction to decide the same i.e. The court of Civil Judge (S.D.). Therefore, the only order which can be passed is that the trial court will have to be frame an issue on this aspect and the same will have to be decided along with other issues. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 15 th July 2006 is quashed and set aside. 3 ii)The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction does not survive in view of transfer of the suit to the court of Civil Judge Senior Division. iii)Along with other issues, the trial court will have to frame and decide the issue of valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees. All contentions of the parties on the issue of valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees are kept open. iv)Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. JUDGE