1 W.P.No.10427/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10427 OF 2010. 1. Sou.Vaishali W/o Deepak Varade, Age 35 years, Occ.Household, R/o Revenue Housing Society, College Road, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Sow. Aruna W/o Prakar Varade, Age 42 years, Occ.Household, R/o as above. Both through their General Power of Attorney holder, Genu S/o Rukmaji Varade, Age 74 years, Occ.Agril. and Pensioner, R/o Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Deelip S/o Kishanrao Shirke, Age 47 years, Occ.Service and Agril., R/o Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, presently resident of 60 feet road, Near Hero Honda Show room, Khot Mala, Old Mumbai Naka, Nashik. 2. Radhgakisan S/o Kondaji Lahamge, Age 60 years, Occ.Agril., 2 W.P.No.10427/10 R/o Adgaon (Bk.), Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, Presently resident at Galli No.7, Purnabhag, Janta Nagar, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Machindra S/o Radhakisan Lahamge, Age 25 years, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. 4. Gorakh S/o Radhakisan Lahamge, Age 32 years, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.D.Shinde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.K.Kshirsagar, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The present Respondent No.1 has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The present petitioners moved an application for framing the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as a 3 W.P.No.10427/10 preliminary issue. The said application came to be rejected. Though, issue Nos.3-A and 3-B are framed by the Court as additional issues but the trial Court vide the impugned order has rejected the application for trying the issues regarding jurisdiction and Court fees as preliminary issue. 3. Mr.A.D.Shinde, learned counsel submits that the matter was before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), who has got limited jurisdiction. The sale deeds of the present petitioners are valued at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) in toto. The said sale deeds are prior to the institution of the suit. If the said issues are decided in favour of the petitioner then there will be no need for trial before the said Court. 4. Mr.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/original plaintiff submits that in fact, the suit is for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement of sale for which the consideration amount was Rs.5,500/-. The suit is valued at Rs.5,500/- for the relief 4 W.P.No.10427/10 of specific performance and for Rs.600/- for the relief of injunction. No question arises of payment in respect of the Court fees on the basis of the pleadings of the defendants. Only the pleadings of the plaintiffs are required to be considered. 5. It is not disputed that the suit is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.). It is a Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. In case the trial Court has framed the issue Nos. 3-A and 3-B regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction and the valuation and payment of Court fees. If on trial, the Court comes to the conclusion that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction then all the proceedings before the said Court would become nullity. So as to avoid such an eventuality, it is always desirable that the issue of a pecuniary jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue, more particularly, when the suit is before the Court of a limited pecuniary jurisdiction. At the time of deciding an application to decide a particular issue as a preliminary issue, we did not go to the contention of the either parties. 5 W.P.No.10427/10 The same would be gone into while giving decision on the said preliminary issue. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The trial Court shall decide issue Nos.3-A and 3-B as preliminary issues on its own merits. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp1042710