1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6341 OF 2008 Kisan Maruti Pawar R/o. Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus Smt. Vimalabai w/o. Ratanlal Bora, R/o. Pandariba, Aurangabad and others ....Respondents. Shri. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri. D.J. Sormare, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. (Absent). As per Court's Order dated 15.3.2010 respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are deleted. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The plaintiff presented a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 105/2002, claiming a declaratory relief to the effect that General Power of Attorney dated 9.10.2000 registered in favour of defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff on 10.11.2000 is false, fabricated and the same is not executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also seeks other reliefs in respect of restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit plots or changing the nature of suit plots. The plaintiff also claims a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants from causing interference 2 with possession of plaintiff over the suit plots. The plaintiff has also prayed for declaratory decree that the sale deeds executed at Aurangabad are illegal documents and are not executed by the plaintiff. 3. The preliminary objection is raised by the defendant, contending that the property is situated at Sillod and the suit is not entertainable at Aurangabad. It is also contended by the defendant that the valuation of the property as noted in the sale deeds is more than Rs. one lac and as such, the Trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to grant the reliefs. 4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties, has framed issues. One of the issue is in respect of valuation of the suit property and the payment of the Court fees. The Trial Court has also framed the issue in respect of jurisdiction to try the suit. Considering the issues framed by the Trial Court and considering the contentions raised by the objectors, the Trial Court turned down the objection raised by the defendant for treating the issue Nos. 6, 7 and 8 as an preliminary issues and further seeking a direction for return of plaint for want of jurisdiction. The Trial Court has turned down the application on the ground that the issues which are framed, can be considered at the time of decision of the suit. One of the reasons for turning down the prayer made by the defendant is that the prayer clause "A" in the plaint, in respect of grant of declaratory decree to the effect that General Power of Attorney registered on 10.11.2000 be declared as false and fabricated 3 document and further declaration sought in respect of the said document that the same is not executed by the plaintiff, can be considered by the Trial Court as the document i.e. Power of Attorney is registered at Aurangabad. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the said document is false and fabricated and is executed by practicing fraud. According to the Trial Court, the suit in respect of grant of such relief is entertainable at Aurangabad as the document in question is registered at Aurangabad. However, as Trial Court has turned down the request for treating the issues as preliminary as well as Trial Court did not find it essential to try those issues before consideration of case on merit, it would be open for Trial Court to apply mind and decide all questions, including the one raised by objector, earlier, at the time of final decision in suit. 5. It is to be noted that in view of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all the issues are required to be dealt with by the Trial Court at once. In the instant matter, it is stated that the affidavit in the nature of examination-in-chief is tendered and as such, recording of evidence in the matter has commenced. It would be open for the Trial Court to consider the issues at Sr. No. 6, 7 and 8 and render decision thereon while deciding the suit. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, I am of the opinion that in exercise of writ jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings. The 4 petition is devoid of substance, hence, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp6341.08