IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2121 of 2008 NARESH PRASAD SINGH YADAV @ NARESH SINGH YADAV Son of Late Adhik Lal Yadav, resident of village- Phulka, Police Station-Jamalpur, District-Munger. ............Defendant/Petitioner. Versus 1. HARI LAL YADAV Son of Late Banarsi Yadav. 2. Sandeep Yadav Son of Hari Lal Yadav. 3. Sujit Kumar Son of Hari Lal Yadav. All residents of Village-Phulka, Police Station-Dharara, District-Munger. ...........Plaintiff/Opp. Parties 1st Set. 4. The State of Bihar through Collector, Munger. 5. Divisional Commissioner, Munger. 6. Anchal Adhikari, Dharara. ..........Defendant/Opp. Parties 2nd Set. 7. Narendra Kumar. 8. Nawin Kumar Yadav. 9. Manoj Kumar Yadav. 10. Rajeshwar Dayal. All sons of Adhik Lal Yadav resident of Village-Phulka, P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. 11. Vandana Kumari. 12. Kalpana Kumari. 13. Indu Kumar. All daughters of Late Adhik Lal Yadav, resident of Village- Phulka, P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. 14. Mohd. Ishaque Mian Son of Sheikh Imam Mian Resident of Village-Phulka, P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. 15. Janardan Yadav Son of Late Indra Devi. 16. Smt. Malti Devi D/o Late Indra Devi. Both resident of Village-Phulka, P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. .....Defendants/Opp. Parties 3rd Set. ----------- 14/ 28.01.2011 With the consent of the parties, instead of deciding I.A. No. 1526 of 2010, the main Civil Revision application itself has been taken up for its final disposal. 2 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by the learned Munsif 1st, Munger in Title Suit No. 10 of 2004, whereby petition dated 19.06.2008, filed on behalf of the defendant no. 4-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been disposed of with an observation that the issues raised on behalf of the defendant-petitioner regarding valuation of the suit and consequently pecuniary jurisdiction of the court shall be taken up at the time of final adjudication of the suit. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that area of suit land is 2 katha 9 dhurs and the plaintiff-opposite parties have shown the valuation of suit property as Rs.6,800/- only, though, according to admission made by P.W.-1 in his deposition, the valuation of suit property would be more than Rs.1,22,500/-. In his submission, if the suit valuation is enhanced to the aforesaid amount, then the learned Munsif would not have jurisdiction to try the suit and entire exercise by the learned Munsif would be futile and suit will have to be tried afresh before a 3 court of competent jurisdiction. It is also highlighted that in that view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the learned Munsif to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in terms of Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 submits that even if the impugned order is allowed to stand, no prejudiced would be caused to the defendant-petitioner, as the learned Munsif has himself observed in the impugned order that question of jurisdiction shall be also decided along with the other issues at the time of final adjudication of the suit. He submits that only with a view to delay the disposal of the suit, the defendant- petitioner has filed this Civil Revision petition on frivolous grounds, which is fit to be rejected by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the opposite parties have placed reliance on certain judgments in support of their contentions. 7. After having heard the parties and after considering the materials available on record, this court finds that the issue raised by defendant-petitioner was not only with respect to payment of insufficient court fee, rather a question of pecuniary jurisdiction has also been raised by 4 the defendant-petitioner. Therefore, instead of deciding all the issues, learned Munisf could have decided that issue as a preliminary issue, and only thereafter he could have proceeded to decide the Title Suit, if it was held that the suit is well within his pecuniary jurisdiction. 8. Without going into the merit of the submissions raised on behalf of the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served, if the learned Munsif decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, and if he comes to a finding that the suit is well within his pecuniary jurisdiction, then he would proceed with the trial, otherwise the consequences should follow. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.09.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Munsif 1st Court, Munger for firstly deciding the question of jurisdiction raised by defendant no. 4-petitiner as preliminary issue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the observations and directions given above. No costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )