Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1026 (PAT)

Ram Prit Pandey v. Prabhansh Pandey

2007-05-31

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has come to this Court against the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by Munsif, Sheohar, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 23/2004 by which he has accepted the contention of the defendants-Opposite parties for disposal of the suit on the preliminary issue. 3. The preliminary issues in question are whether the suit properties have been properly valued and whether the Court fee paid therein are adequate and the further preliminary issue is whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary issue can only be decided at the outset before the examination of the witnesses whereas in the present matter, the plaintiff has already examined witnesses and 10 witnesses on behalf of the defendants have also been examined. It is submitted that at such belated juncture, there is no justification for disposing of the suit on the preliminary issues relating to pecuniary jurisdiction. 5. From the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2, it is evident that any such preliminary issue ought to be considered immediately after the framing of the issues if the court, is of the view that the entire suit can be disposed of on a question of law relating to jurisdiction or as to the bar of suit created by any law. 6. It is no doubt true that the Court below has decided to first go into the aforesaid preliminary issues at a fairly belated stage but at the same time, the objection had been taken from the beginning by the defendants regarding the valuation of the suit property as also the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and since the matter goes to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that once the Court below has exercised its discretion to proceed first with respect to the said issues, it rnay not be appropriate to interfere with the said discretion. The discretion though exercised belatedly is certainly not beyond the jurisdiction of the Court below. 7. Moreover, since the matter relates to the very jurisdiction of the Court to decide other issues, for the said reason also, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Revision application is accordingly dismissed.