1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2775 OF 1998 Sudam Shankar Satav and others Petitioners versus Kisan Dinkar Valung Respondent Mr.Ditendra Mishra for petitioner. Mr.Rahul Kate for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th February 2010 JUDGEMENT : 1. The petitioners who are the original defendants have taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 9th March 1998 passed by the Trial Court. 2. The respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The suit is being contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction. The preliminary issue framed by the Trial Court has been quoted in paragraph 2 of the impugned order which reads thus : "Whether defendant no.1 to 3 prove that government is the owner of City Survey No.293, 295, and as such Collector is a necessary party to the present suit? Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?" 2 3. The Trial Court held that by the impugned order that the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the issue regarding ownership and the issue whether the Collector was a necessary party was not decided by the impugned order and the same was kept open. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that apart from the issue of inherent jurisdiction, the issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was also framed by the Trial Court. He submitted that the material on record shows that the respondent is not the owner of the suit property. He submitted that there was material on record to show that the house of the first petitioner was situated on a land allotted by the Collector. He submitted that it is obvious that the Collector was a necessary and proper party. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is erroneous. 5. I have considered the submissions. As the suit stands today neither the State Government nor an officer of the State Government is a party to the suit. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction has been made at Rs.6,800/-. Therefore, as the plaint stands today, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Merely because the Government is allegedly a necessary party to the suit, the jurisdiction could not have been conferred on the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Whether the respondent-plaintiff has established the title is a question which can be decided only after 3 evidence is adduced. The question whether the Collector is a necessary party to the suit will have to be decided only after evidence is adduced by the parties. If ultimately it is found on evidence that Collector was a necessary party, the consequences of non joinder of necessary parties will follow. At this stage, the suit could not have been thrown out on the ground that the Collector is not impleaded as a party. 6. As far as pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, as the objection of the petitioners is to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, the Trial Court will have to hold an enquiry under section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and thereafter the Court will have to decide as to what is the correct valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. At that stage, if the Court finds that the correct valuation of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, the Trial Court can always pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is rejected. Hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA, J.)