(1) WP 1348.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2011 Pradeep Prabhakar Nagargoje PETITIONER VERSUS Prabhakar Bhagwantrao Nagargoje and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Chandole, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. Contention in view of express language of Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure issue in relation to valuation cannot be tried as preliminary issue. It is further urged that respondents' except for mentioning vaguely that market value of house property was more than Rs.10 Lakhs, have not produced any material. 2. I have perused the plaint as filed. Paragraph 5 of the plaint shows that for the purpose of house property, Court fee has been calculated at 400 times of the land revenue. The land revenue is shown to have been Rs. 34.96. On what basis this (2) WP 1348.2011 assessment has been accepted and why it is multiplied by 400 is not disclosed. It is also clear that there is no legal provision supporting such exercise. 3. The suit as filed is for partition and separate possession and the proceedings are presently before the Court of Judicial Division at Ahmedpur. If the valuation is found to be Rs.2 Lakhs, the jurisdiction will be with Court of C.J.S.D. It is apparent that section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates an objection of pecuniary jurisdiction to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. The trial Court after framing of preliminary issues found it appropriate to decide that issue without touching other issues on merits. If it is found that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction, it is apparent that it will lack jurisdiction to record evidence. 4. In the present facts, I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the matter. Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp