1 wp 6794.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6794 OF 2011 Gajendra Bapu Puri .. Petitioner Versus Nagnath Devasthan Trust Tirbh (Bk) through President .. Respondent Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is defendant. The respondent had filed a suit for mandatory injunction. The said suit is fixed for evidence at that stage the petitioner filed an application for framing the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 2. Smt. Dube, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the bar engrafted U/Sec. 80 of the Bombay Public 2 wp 6794.11 Trust Act read with Section 50, the Civil Court cannot have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The learned counsel also relies on the other provisions of the Statute to substantiate that the suit could not have been entertained and the preliminary issue of jurisdiction should have been framed. The learned counsel further contends that even the issue of jurisdiction is not framed. The present application even otherwise could have been accepted for framing of issue of jurisdiction. 3. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that the Civil Court has jurisdiction and the Court has rightly considered the same. 4. The petitioner had filed an application for framing the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The suit is fixed for recording of evidence. It is settled law that all issues are required to be decided together except in exceptional circumstances and so also when the provisions of Sec. 9­A of the Code of Civil Procedure applies. In the present case, the application is filed when the suit is fixed for recording of the evidence, as such stage of Sec. 9­A has also lapsed. In such circumstances, no error has 3 wp 6794.11 been committed by the Court in rejecting the application for framing that issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court has held that it has jurisdiction is improper as the Court has observed that without prejudice to rights of defendant, this Court has jurisdiction and there is no necessity at this stage to go back again. The Trial Court while passing the order has further observed that it would be better to decide the suit finally on merits and defendants have ample opportunity to raise law points at the time of final arguments. This shows that the Court was conscious of the fact that the Court was dealing with an application for framing preliminary issue. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for framing an issue of jurisdiction. The Court shall consider the said application on its own merits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11