1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3022 of 2009 (Smt. Vimal O. Gulhane v. Ramesh K. Gulhane and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri V.K. Gulhane, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 24 th July, 2009 This petition is directed against the rejection by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, of the petitioner’s application Exhibit 14 in Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2009 for dismissal of the suit on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur, in respect of the same subject-matter, bearing Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2009, on 17-1-2009. Thereafter, defendant Jitendra Kisanrao Gulhane and one other had filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2009 on the basis of a will in respect of the same property at Jamthi, Taluka Murtizapur, before the Civil Court at Amravati on 12-3-2009. The petitioner had filed preliminary objection 2 under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction, which application was rejected by the impugned order. Since the petitioner had prayed for dismissal of the suit, rejection of her application was proper. However, the learned Trial Judge at Amravati should have seen that the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which was framed, was required to be decided by her. The impugned order does not depict that the Court was dealing with that preliminary issue. If the preliminary issue is decided, the remedy of the petitioner would lie elsewhere. But as far as the impugned order rejecting the application for dismissal of the suit is concerned, it does not call for any interference, since the suit could not have been dismissed. The learned Judge should have allowed the parties to tender evidence, if any, on the preliminary issue and then decided the preliminary issue. In any case, since this is not shown to be specifically precluded, no interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl