1 W.P.7020.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7020 OF 2010 1. Sainath S/o Banderao Mate,Age: 42 Years, Occupation: Service and Agriculture, R/o Bhimnagar Geoprai, Tql. Georai, District Beed, and others. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 2. Babasaheb S/o Talaji Mate, Age 47 Years, Occup.: Labour, R/o R/o at Manyarwadi, Post Georai. Tal Georai, District Beed, And others. ..RESPONDENTS Shri.S.J.Salunke,Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni,Advocate for Respondent Nos 1,2, and 4. Respondent Nos. 3,5,and 6 served but absent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. At the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present Writ Petition is heard and finally decided. 2. This Writ Petition is filed against the order dated 26th April, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Georai, at Exh.61 in Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 2001, in 2 W.P.7020.10 which the petitioners are defendants. This suit is filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 for partition of joint Hindu family properties. The suit properties are several houses in Georai town and one agricultural land. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - plaintiffs stated in the plaint that market value of the house properties on the date of filing of the suit was not more than Rs.16,200/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred). They stated that, in view of the said market value the Court would have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The petitioners and other defendants filed common written statement, in which they challenged correctness of the statement of respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs in respect of market value of the suit properties specially the house properties. They stated in the written statement that market value of the suit properties could be more than Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) and they also indicated that if this fact has been proved, it oust the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. 4. The issues are framed and the Court is in the midst of recording of evidence. At this belated stage, the petitioner- defendant No.1 filed present application seeking amendment to the written statement. He, now wants to substitute figure Rs.15,29,580 to the figure Rs. 1,50,000 which he stated as the market value of the suit properties. The learned Judge of the Lower Court rejected this application, mainly because the application was made at 3 W.P.7020.10 belated stage and after the suit is reached the stage of recording evidence. I would not disturb this order, but would indicate that the issue relating to the market value of the suit properties (house properties) is very much before the court and outcome of which is likely to affect the jurisdiction of the Court. The issue would be decided on the basis of the evidence. On this issue, the learned Judge cannot prevent the petitioners-defendants to bring on record evidence to indicate that the market value of the suit houses on the date of filing of the suit was more than Rs.16,200/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred) and was so much that it would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In order to lead such evidence, the defendants are not bound by what they stated in the written statement in respect of the market value of the house properties on the date of filing of the suit. All that was required to be stated in the written statement is that the valuation of the suit properties was incorrect and erroneous and that market value of the suit properties is so much that it would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. With this pleading the defendants would be entitled to bring on record such material that would convince the Court that valuation of the suit properties/suit houses is erroneously mentioned in the plaint. It is likely that the trial court may record a finding that market value of the suit properties/suit houses is so much more that it would oust jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Judge of the lower Court shall keep this aspect in mind and then record his finding on the basis of the evidence which would 4 W.P.7020.10 come on record. It is made clear that since suit is pending for at least ten years, now the learned Judge of the lower Court shall decide all issues and dispose of the suit as early as possible. Sd/- [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] MTKok