JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference at this stage.The case of the petitioner is that he raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Jodhpur.At this instance, he has sought interference of the Court for returning the plaint before the appropriate court on the ground that adjudication of the plaint at Jodhpur cannot be made as it lacks territorial jurisdiction. However, that plea was rejected by the High Court directing that he should file written objection and thereafter the issue may be framed. 2. That order was not interfered by the Supreme Court also. The Supreme Court observed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction will be decided by the High Court or Supreme Court.The rejection of the application for returning the plaint to be presented before the appropriate court obviously cannot be clubbed with the subsequent pleadings and, therefore, nothing turns from the previous order so far as this case is concerned.The petitioner now wants that this Court should direct the trial court to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue and then proceed further. 3. Having perused the pleadings in the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the evidence is required to be led on the question of jurisdiction as well as on the question of settling the accounts which according to the learned counsel admittedly exist between the parties. In that view of the matter, it will not be appropriate to lead evidence in piecemeal. This prayer has rightly been rejected by the trial court.Therefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******