IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1832 of 2008 The Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, P.S. Shashtrinagar, District- Patna through its Managing Director ---- Defendant No.3 --- Petitioner. Versus 1. Raj Kishore Singh, son of late B.P. Singh, resident of Mohalla-Anandpuri (Ugna Apartment), Flat No.201, West Boring Canal Road, P.S. Shri Krishnapuri, District-Patna ---- Plaintiff/Opposite Party. 2. M/S Grih Pravesh Engineers and Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Exhibition Road, Sri Ram Bhawan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna ---- Defendant/Opposite Party. 3. Sri Amiya Kumar Jha (A.K. Jha), son of late G.S. Jha, resident of Ugna Apartment, Mohalla_Anandpuri, P.O. & P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna, Ex-Secretary of Gunjan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee, Patna. ---- Defendant No.2/Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- with Civil Revision No.1833 of 2008 The Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, P.S. Shashtrinagar, District- Patna through its Managing Director ---- Defendant --- Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Navin Kumar, son of Shri Parmeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Baraon (Post), P.S. Nokha, District-Rohtas, at present resident of Flat No.A/202, Ugna Apartment, Anandpuri, Boring Canal Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna. ---- Plaintiff/Opposite Party. 2. M/S Grih Pravesh Engineers and Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Exhibition Road, Sri Ram Bhawan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna ---- Defendant/Opposite Party. 3. Sri Amiya Kumar Jha (A.K. Jha), son of late G.S. Jha, resident of Ugna Apartment, Mohalla_Anandpuri, 2 P.O. & P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna, Ex- Secretary of Gunjan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee, Patna. ---- Defendant No.2/Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 18. 15.11.2011 We shall first take up C. R. No.1832 of 2008. Heard Mr. Purushottam Jha for the petitioner, and Mr. R. K. Shukla for opposite party no.1. This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendant no.3 of Title Suit No. 495 of 2004, and is directed against the order dated 23.7.2008, passed by the learned Sub- Ordinate Judge I Court, Patna, whereby he has held that the preliminary objection raised by this defendant as to the maintainability of the suit shall be taken up at the time of hearing of the suit. 2. Opposite party no.1 herein instituted the suit for certain reliefs. Defendant no.3 (the petitioner herein) filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d), read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, submitting therein that, in view of the bar engrafted in Section 57, read with Section 48, of the Bihar Co- operative Societies Act, 1935, the suit in its present 3 frame is not maintainable. On a perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that this shall be taken up at the time of hearing of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following reported judgments: (i) The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, (1976) 1 SCC 496. (ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Deen Dayal Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 697. (iii) Radha Krishna Jaiswal Vs. Sheela Kanchan & others, 2003(1) P.L.J.R. 18. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Law is well settled that the Court before whom the matter is pending, and whose jurisdiction has been challenged, has the authority to decide its own jurisdiction. It appears to us from a perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial court is of the view that the question of jurisdiction in the instant suit is a mixed question of facts and law and will, therefore, be taken up at the time of hearing of the suit. We do not find any error in the impugned order. The learned trial court shall frame a specific issue in that behalf and will, 4 inter alia, be guided by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd (supra). C. R. No. 1833 of 2008. 4. Heard Mr. Purushottam Jha for the petitioner, and Mr. R. K. Sinha for opposite party no.1. One of the defendants of Title Suit No. 494 of 2004 has preferred the present civil revision application, and is directed against the order dated 23.7.2008, passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge Ist Court, Patna, whereby he has held that the preliminary objection raised by this defendant as to the maintainability of the suit shall be taken up at the time of hearing of the suit. The present civil revision application is entirely covered by the aforesaid order dismissing C.R. No. 1832 of 2008. 5. In the result, C.R. No.1832 of 2008, and C.R. No.1833 of 2008, are dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)