1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1509 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1509 OF 2011 *** 1. Based upon clause 14 in an agreement the trial Court has framed preliminary issue to find out whether it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute. Learned counsel Mr. Bajpai has urged that said clause 14 is not relevant insofar as petitioner/ plaintiff is concerned. It is further urged that in any case because of the status of defendants as pleaded, for adjudication of that issue the evidence on merits is required to be recorded and looking to the quantum of that evidence or its nature it will be in the fitness of things to adjudicate all issues together so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. She also wants to cite certain judgments to demonstrate that course of action adopted by trial Court in this situation is not proper. 2. It is apparent that at this stage 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1509 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. correctness or otherwise of the contentions of rival parties is not relevant. The trial Court has looked into the relevant clause and thereafter has found it necessary to frame preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. It is obvious that as and when trial Court undertakes adjudication of that issue the petitioner/ plaintiff as also other defendants will get opportunity to advance their rival contentions. 3. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:11/03/2011. ans/1509