1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.659 OF 2008 Ravishankar Sharma ..Appellant V/s Mrs.Varsha Ajay Sharma & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr. R.A.Thorat i/by Mr. P .J. Thorat for the appellant. Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni i/by A.M.Kulkarni for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 28th August, 2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. Admit. By consent of parties, matter is forthwith heard finally. 2 This is an appeal filed by the original Respondent no.2, impugning an order below interim application no.87 of 2007 in Petition No.B-8 of 2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai on 8.1.2008. By the impugned order, without allowing parties to lead evidence the Court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The order itself indicates that the Advocate for the original petitioner i.e. present respondent no.1 himself contended that the issue of jurisdiction was a mixed question of law and fact. He has further contended that the Court would be required to record evidence before deciding the issue. The Court however, recorded his contention and proceeded to decide the issue on the assumption that contents of the petition are true and did not require further proof. 2 Both parties agree that the issue requires leading of evidencewith opportunity to cross- examine. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 8.1.2008 is set aside and the Family Court, Mumbai is directed to decide the issue afresh after giving liberty to the parties to lead evidence on the preliminary issue. Civil Revision Application stands disposed off. All contentions of parties are left open. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3