IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15503 of 2011 Ganga Thakur Versus Sheo Pujan Pandey ---------------------------------- 02. 14.09.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge Vth, Buxar in Title Suit No.168 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below refused to decide the issue regarding valuation and court fee as preliminary issue on the ground that the point raised by the petitioner requires evidence to be recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer of the plaintiff could not be granted by the trial Court unless various documents are set aside and, therefore, in such circumstances the plaintiff was required to pay advelorum court fee. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaint has been cleverly drafted and no consequential relief has been paid. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the point raised by the petitioner requires evidences and, therefore, it is not a pure question of law. After - 2 - amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1976, the discretion is on the Court to decide an issue as preliminary issue and it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to decide the issue even if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court and also a bar created under any law. In the present case, admittedly, the point raised by the petitioner is not a pure question of law and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Court below exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that he failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law or that he exercised a jurisdiction in a manner which is not provided under any law. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ application and accordingly it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)