kbp 1 587-03.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 587 OF 2003 Anandrao Govindrao Panse ..Petitioner Vs. Durgaprasad Shrivallabh Panse and ors. ..Respondents ....... Mr.A.A.Joshi, for petitioner. Mr.Sagar Joshi i/b.Mr.S.M.Oak, for respondent no.1. ....... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 1 st OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] On 18 th June, 2003 this Court issued notice for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2] The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 3 rd January, 2000 passed by the trial court on the application filed by the petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit filed by first respondent. There were two prayers in the application. The first prayer in the application is for framing an issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. It is pointed out in the application that the issue no.7 framed by the trial court is on the basis of contention of the first defendant that the suit is undervalued. The second prayer in the application is for referring issue No.4 to the Tribunal established under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 kbp 2 587-03.sxw (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By the impugned order, the said application was rejected. The first ground on which the application was rejected is that there is no specific contention in the written statement that the valuation of the suit property is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. The court observed that there is no specific plea that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the court merely observed that the issue is regarding the past tenancy which is already decided and hence, a reference to the Tribunal is not necessary. 3] There is a specific contention raised in the written statement that the suit has been undervalued, and therefore, a specific issue has been framed on the said aspect being Issue No.7. Obviously, the finding recorded by the court on the said issue will affect the jurisdiction of the court in the sense that if the court finds that the correct valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is exceeding pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the court, an appropriate order will have to be passed in that behalf. Therefore, in substance while the said issue is being decided, the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction will have to be decided. Therefore, the issue no.7 is sufficient to take care of the contention raised by the petitioner. Issue no.7 will require evidence to be recorded. In the suit of the year 1995, it will be unjust to direct that the said issue be tried as a preliminary issue. 4] As far as the issue no.4 is concerned, the trial court will have to apply its mind to the material on record and to decide whether a reference to the Tribunal kbp 3 587-03.sxw is necessary in the light of the law laid down by this court. This aspect has not been considered by the trial court and there is no application of mind by the trial court on the question of making a reference. To the aforesaid extent the impugned order will have to be modified. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) It is clarified that while dealing with the issue no.7 which is already framed, the court will have to consider the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain and try the suit filed by the first respondent. (b) As far as the prayer made for referring the issue no.4 for the adjudication of the Tribunal under the said Act is concerned, the trial Court will hear the parties on this aspect and will pass an appropriate order. (c) This exercise shall be completed by the trial court within two months from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the trial court. (d) All contentions of the parties in that behalf are expressly kept open. (e) The impugned order stands modified in the above terms. (f) Petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( A.S.OKA, J. )