1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2009 Manjula Kishore Shah and Ors. .....Applicants V/s. Purnima Pravin Shah and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Deepak C. Natu i/by M/s.N.Deepak & Co., for the applicants. Mr.A.C.Shah i/by D.R.Shah, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2009 P.C. 1. The applicants are the original defendants against whom the respondents herein have filed the suit being Short Cause Suit No.1449 of 2008 before City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai. The said suit has been filed for dissolution of the partnership firm and various other reliefs. During the pendency of the said suit, the present applicants preferred an application to the effect that the suit is bad in law and is not maintainable and that the suit is hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the valuation of the suit is more than Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the City Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, as the Court can try the suit only upto to Rs.50,000/- and not above the same. It is the 2 case of the respondents/original defendants that the valuation of the suit property is about Rs.1 Crore. 3. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned order decided the preliminary issue in the suit. As regards issue No.1, it was found that the suit is maintainable and is not hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. On the ground of jurisdiction, the learned Trial Judge found that the issue as to whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit is kept open until inquiry under Section 8 of the Court fees Act, for valuation of the suit is completed. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned in this Civil Revision Application. 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the revision is not required to be entertained at this stage. If ultimately, on the point of maintainability of the suit as per Section 69 of the Act is concerned, the said finding of the learned Trial Judge can be challenged by the appellant in case the suit is decided against the applicants by the trial Court. If the decree of the trial Court is against the applicants and if the applicants are required to file any appeal, such point can be taken in such an appeal. So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, the said aspect is kept open and the trial Court found that the same shall be decided after the report under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, is made available. Considering the 3 aforesaid aspects, this revision is not required to be entertained, subject to liberty to the applicants to challenge the impugned order on the point of maintainability of the suit in an appeal in case the appellants are required to file an appeal against the original decree. 5. With the above observations, the civil revision application is disposed of. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)