IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1686 of 2008 KABIR ASTHAN Versus NAGESHWAR PRASAD RAJAK & ORS ----------- 2 1.10.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order clearly amounts to shirking responsibility rendering the same to be vitiated by an apparent jurisdictional error. The prayer of the petitioner, defendant in the suit, was that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue. The Court below for that purpose was not required to look into any other things except the plaint inasmuch as if the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party only for declaration of the alleged Arpannama to be void probably the valuation of the suit is correct but, if the suit also seeks relief of declaration of the right, title and interest on the basis of four sale deeds whose value have been indicated in the plaint itself, the valuation definitely will have to be made on such value of the sale deeds on the basis of whom the plaintiff has claimed his such right. A simple but significant issue should not have been scuttled by the Court below for its being decided at the time of final disposal of the suit especially when the same related to jurisdiction of the Court. Such 2 jurisdiction infact would automatically change if the value of the suit in found to be more than Rs. 50,000/-. That being so, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Court below to decide this question of pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and pass a final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)