1 WP No. 7242/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7242 of 2010 Smt.Satyabhamabai S. Hagwane ... Petitioner versus Baban Nivrutti Hagvane & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.G.R.Agarwal for the petitioner. Mr.A.U. Nikam for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 3rd December 2010 P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Nikam waives service for the respondent. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In the suit filed by the petitioner, respondents (original defendants made an application on 11 November 2009 at Exhibit 84 purporting to be an application u/s.9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said application, respondents contended that the subject matter of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and hence the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. They prayed that the Court may frame a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit. 3. By an order dated 13 November 2009, the trial Court held that the subject matter of the suit was Rs.3,35,07,017/-. The Court further 2 WP No. 7242/10 held that the petitioner had not valued the suit properly and therefore, directed the petitioner to amend the plaint by valuing the suit at Rs. 3,35,07,017/-. That order is impugned in this petition. 4. It may be noted that application of the respondent was to frame a preliminary issue. If the Court were to allow the said application, all that the Court could have done is to frame a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the Court. In stead of considering the prayer for framing a preliminary issue, the Court straight way recorded a finding that the valuation of the suit was not proper. No enquiry u/s.8 of the Court Fees Act was also held by the Court. Consequently, the order is set aside. 5. For these reasons, writ petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. It is however directed that the Court may frame a preliminary issue and if such a preliminary issue is framed, the Court would give opportunity to the parties to adduce appropriate evidence in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny & Anr, reported in 1999(1) Bom.C.R. 107. So far as the valuation of the suit is concerned, the Court can undoubtedly hold an enquiry as contemplated u/s.8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act and after hearing the parties pass an appropriate order after holding the requisite enquiry in accordance with law. 5. Rule is made absolsute to the extent indicated above. (D.G.KARNIK, J)