1 MCA-84-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2010 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 4088 OF 2005 Smt. Zohrabai Munir Mohammed Shaikh ... Applicant (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. Mr. Babumiya Mohammed Attar ... Respondent (Orig. defendant) Mr.G.V.Pandya,Advocate, for the applicant.. Mr. Manojkumar Upadhyay,Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 12th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present applicant is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit no. 4088/2005 before the City Civil Court on the ground that the defendant/respondent is a trespasser in the suit property. The suit is defended by the defendant by filing written statement. In the written statement, one of the points raised by him is about the proper valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. According to him, value of the suit property is more than Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the City Civil Court does not have 2 MCA-84-10.sxw jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Court raised the preliminary issue and directed the parties to lead evidence only about preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The parties led evidence on the said point. The defendant was under cross- examination by the Advocate for the plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff put the following two questions :- "(1) Have you ever met Zohrabai in connection with the said gala ? (2) Whether Zohrabai has put you in possession of this gala" Both these questions were rejected by the trial Court holding that these questions are not relevant for the enquiry about pecuniary jurisdiction of the matter. 3. The applicant has filed this application for transfer of the matter to some other Court on the ground that in view of the approach of the trial Court, he will not get justice. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff contends that in view of the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 11, C.P.C., when any question is put to the party and objection is taken, the trial court should note down the objection and also give decision on the point by giving reasons thereof. On perusal of the 3 MCA-84-10.sxw record, it is clear that both the questions, referred above, were noted down by the trial Court and were rejected by giving reasons that those questions were not relevant for the purpose of enquiry into the valuation of the suit which goes o the root of the matter. The application is moved for transfer merely because the learned Judge rejected the two questions which are per-se irrelevant for decision of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Such tendency needs to be curbed. In view of these observations, I am unable to find any illegality in the order. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Application stands rejected subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited before the trial Court within two weeks from this day, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)