HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT 'BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwakar) WRIT PETITION (227) No. 107 of..2009 1. Shrikant Sarda, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Ratanlalji Sarda, Vishnudas Sarda, aged about 45 years, Slo Bhagirath Ji Sarda Both Rlo Sarda Traders, Old Civil LineS, Rajnandgaon. * 3. Pandit Shrikant Maharaj, aged ‘about 5O yéars, S/o Pt. Yamuna Prasad Mishra, Present Address, Ramayan Satsang Bhawan, Parvati Sadan, Bramhimpara, Rajnandgaon VERSUS RESPONDENT Smt. Parvati 'Bai, aged about 82 Plaintiff years, Wlo Late Shri Ratanlai Ji Sarda, By Occupation House Wfie, Rlo through Laxminiwas Sarda, Vardhman Nagar, Rajnandgaon. Mr. Parag Kotecha counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anoop Mazumdar, counsel for the reSpondeht: a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLEI227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (23042009) in this petition, petitioners have ehailenged‘ the order dated 03.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 16-N2007 whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to lead evidence fer deciding the preliminary issue has been rejected. l Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the preliminary issue which has been framed can only be decided after adducing the proper evidence and the court below has committed an illegality in passing the order impugned rejecting the application of the petitioners. Supporting the order impugned learned counsel for the respondent submits that the nature of the preliminary issue is such which can be decided by oral argument only and if at all the evidence is necessary then the preliminary issue along with I other issues can be decided and that too after completion of the entire evidence. He further submits that if the preliminary issue is decided either way, the said order would be an appelable order and it would not cause any prejudice'to the petitioners. l have heard counsel for the parties and peruse the order impunged. On the request of the petitioners on 17.09.2008 the following preliminary issae wasframed: Whether the plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fee ? lf yes, the effect. Nature of the preliminary issue is such that the same can‘be decided on the basis of submission and pleadings of the parties. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that for deciding this issue petitioners should have been allowed to lead evidence in respect of current valuation report of the property, cannot be accepted. r I ,‘5... True it is that in a given case the evidence may be permitted for deciding the preliminary issue which has been framed by the court below but submission of the petitioners as to the nature of evidence which he wants to adduce cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Court below was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners to lead evidence for deciding the preliminary issue. There is no error apparent on the face of the record calling for an interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is liable for dismissal and) it is dismissed as such‘/ / v No order as to costs. /V sdl— Diwalw‘ prit'mker Judge Jyo