ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against order dated 6.5.2015 passed by the District Judge, Pali, dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2001, returning the plaint for institution in the court in which the suit should have been instituted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the respondents No. 3 to 5 are not the contesting respondents and therefore, service upon them may be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage. 4. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali in the year 1998, in respect of a house situated at Pali. The suit was being contested by the defendant No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) by filing a written statement thereto. The property subject matter of the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 80,000/- and accordingly, the court fee of Rs. 2065/- was paid on one-half of the value of the property as per provisions of Section 24(b) of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961. 5. The defendants in the written statement filed disputed the valuation made by the plaintiff, claiming the market value of the property to be Rs. 13,48,000/- as against Rs. 80,000/- disclosed by the plaintiff and accordingly, contended that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That apart, a consequent objection regarding insufficiency of the court fees paid was also raised. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues regarding the market value of the property, undervaluation of the suit and insufficiency of the court fees, in the following terms:- ^^fook|d la[;k&4 vk;k fooknxzLr edku dk cktkj ewY; 13]48]000@& :i;s gksus ds dkj.k okn dks lquus dk bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ fook|d la[;k&5 vk;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k tkdj vi;kZIr U;k;’kqYd izLrqr fd;k x;k gS\** 7. Vide order dated 9.2.2011, the issues framed as aforesaid were directed to be decided as preliminary issues. Vide order dated 9.2.2011, the issues framed as aforesaid were directed to be decided as preliminary issues. Prior to it, two applications preferred by the defendants questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit were rejected by the trial court vide order dated 8.9.1998 and 6.4.2002, observing that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the court shall be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties, after framing of the issues. 8. At this stage, after framing of the issues, the defendants preferred an application under Section 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the property subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs. 80,000/- and since the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (S.D.) as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 50,000/- the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 9. The application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff by filing a reply thereto. The stand of the plaintiff was that two applications preferred by the defendants questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit already stand rejected by the court vide order dated 18.9.1998 & 6.4.2002 and therefore, apparently, fresh application filed is barred by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). In the alternative, it was prayed that the question sought to be raised could be decided while deciding the issue No. 4 as framed by the trial court and if it is found that the court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, the same may be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. 10. However, the trial court framed an additional preliminary issue in the following terms:- ^^vk;k bl U;k;ky; dks ;g nkok lquus dk vUrZfufgr vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj gkfly gS\** 11. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the court found that admittedly, the value of the property subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs. 80,000/- whereas, the Civil Judge (S.D.) had jurisdiction to hear the suits subject matter whereof does not exceed the valuation of Rs. 50,000/-. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the court found that admittedly, the value of the property subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs. 80,000/- whereas, the Civil Judge (S.D.) had jurisdiction to hear the suits subject matter whereof does not exceed the valuation of Rs. 50,000/-. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrika Misir and Another vs. Bhaiya Lal, 1973 SC 2391, the court observed that the question with regard to inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Relying upon a decision of this court in the matter of Ram Narayan and Others vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) Mandalgarh and Another, (2009) 2 DNJ (Raj.) 1056, the court observed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is determined on the basis of value of the subject matter of the suit and not on the basis of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of payment of court fee. Accordingly, the court arrived at the finding that the value of the property subject matter of the suit being Rs. 80,000/- it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the court found that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same deserves to be returned to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court as aforesaid, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Pali. The defendants also preferred an appeal taking the stand that the plaint could not have been returned to the plaintiff rather, it should have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 13. The appellate court concurred with the finding recorded by the trial court holding that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is determined on the basis of the value of the subject matter and not on the basis of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of payment of court fee and since the value of the property, subject matter of the suit, is admittedly Rs. 80,000/- the Civil Judge (S.D.) having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, subject matter whereof does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- has rightly returned the plaint for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. 80,000/- the Civil Judge (S.D.) having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, subject matter whereof does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- has rightly returned the plaint for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. The appeal preferred by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed as devoid of any merit. Hence, this petition on behalf of the plaintiff. 14. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the orders impugned passed by the courts below are based on misinterpretation of the provisions of law determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil court. Learned counsel submitted that the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be construed to be inherent lack of jurisdiction and therefore, the trial court had seriously erred in returning the plaint. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the question regarding the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction on the basis of the valuation of the property subject matter of the suit has not been raised by the defendants in the written statement filed. Learned counsel submitted that the defendants had filed two applications earlier questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit but no objection in this regard was taken at that stage either. Learned counsel submitted that if the defendants had any objection to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit on the ground of the court lacking the pecuniary jurisdiction, nothing prevented them from taking such objection at the relevant time, when the applications raising objection to jurisdiction of the court were made earlier. Learned counsel submitted that apparently, the fresh application filed by the defendants, was barred by principle of res judicata. Learned counsel would submit that keeping in view the provisions of Section 21 of CPC, the objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit cannot be permitted to be raised, after settlement of the issues, at this belated stage and therefore, the application was liable to be rejected on this count alone. Learned counsel submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (S.D.) has already been enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. Learned counsel submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (S.D.) has already been enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5 lacs by way of amendment of Section 19 of Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 and therefore, there is no reason as to why the suit wherein the issues have already been framed and which is pending before the trial court for last 17 years, should be returned for presentation before the court, having jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as on the date the suit was presented by the plaintiff before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali. Learned counsel would submit that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (S.D.) having been enhanced as aforesaid, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of case, it will be in the interest of justice that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this court directs the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali, to continue with the suit proceedings and complete the trial. Learned counsel submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1998, is pending for last 17 years and therefore, it will be appropriate that the court below is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit within the time frame. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Mehta, counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the stand taken on behalf of the defendants before the courts below, submitted that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, the order passed by the trial court, returning the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the value of the property, subject matter of the suit, exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, as on the date of institution of the suit and therefore, on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the same could not have been entertained by the court below. Learned counsel submitted that if there is lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court in terms of Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the objection regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit was raised by the defendants at belated stage. Learned counsel would submit that subsequent enhancement of the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court cannot operate retrospectively and therefore, the suit instituted in the court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, shall not stand regularised on account of subsequent amendment of the statute, enhancing the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel submitted that the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be treated as inherent lack of jurisdiction and therefore, the court below has committed no error in returning the plaint for proper presentation. 16. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 17. Section 6 of CPC, which deals with pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of the suits, reads as under: “6. Pecuniary jurisdiction-Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.” 18. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 6 CPC, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is not determined on the basis of valuation of the suit for the purpose of the computation of the court fee but, on the basis of value of subject matter of the suit. Admittedly, in the instant case, the property subject matter of the suit, has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 80,000/- whereas, as on the date of filing of the suit, the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the value of the subject matter whereof, does not exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. In this view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the courts below that as on the date of filing of the suit, the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be faulted with. 19. 50,000/-. In this view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the courts below that as on the date of filing of the suit, the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be faulted with. 19. But then, it is pertinent to note that the principle of waiver regarding territorial jurisdiction having statutory recognition under old Section 21, now under sub-section (1) thereof, vide CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, stands extended to pecuniary jurisdiction as well, by way of insertion of new sub-section (2), which reads as under: “(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.” 20. A perusal of the provision incorporated as aforesaid, reveals that it lays down triad conditions regarding raising of objection as to competence of a court with reference to limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction:- (i) The objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. (ii) In all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement. (iii) There has been a consequent failure of justice. 21. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the objection relating to pecuniary jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement and if a party omits to plead and raise objection at the appropriate stage, it would stand precluded from raising objection in this regard. In other words, the objection as to competence of the court with reference to limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction shall stand waived. In this view of the matter, the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the court to entertain the suit cannot be construed as inherent lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis between the parties, which cannot be consented or waived. 22. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1998. 22. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1998. In the written statement filed, the defendants have taken objection regarding the market value of the property, subject matter of the suit, as also regarding insufficiency of the court fees paid on that account, but, no objection regarding the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit as framed, was raised by the defendants therein. It is also not in dispute that the defendants made two applications earlier questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, however, no objection regarding the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in the terms taken by way of a fresh application, which is subject matter of this petition, was ever raised. It is to be noticed that in the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1998, the issues were framed on 9.2.2011 and issue No. 4 and 5 as framed regarding the market value of the property, undervaluation of the suit, consequent lack of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit and insufficiency of the court fees were directed to be decided as preliminary issues. But in any case, it is not in dispute that no objection regarding the court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit as framed was ever raised on behalf of the defendants before the settlement of the issues. It is not the case of the defendants that there is an absolute lack of jurisdiction in the court below to adjudicate the lis between the parties. It is also not the case set out by the defendants that on account of the suit being tried and decided by the court below on merits, prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants or it will occasion failure of justice. As a matter of fact, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of CPC, even if objection about pecuniary jurisdiction is taken at the earliest opportunity, it must be shown that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, which is merely an irregularity, there is consequent failure of justice. As a matter of fact, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of CPC, even if objection about pecuniary jurisdiction is taken at the earliest opportunity, it must be shown that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, which is merely an irregularity, there is consequent failure of justice. In this view of the matter, in the instant case where the parties are locked in litigious battle for last 17 years and the matter has not proceeded beyond framing of the issues, whereas, in the first instance, after the institution of suit, the summons are issued to the defendants for framing of the issues, and therefore, at this belated stage, when the objection raised by the defendants regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not satisfy any of the triad conditions incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 21 of CPC, the appellate court has seriously erred in affirming the order passed by the trial court returning the plaint for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. 23. In view of the discussion above, this Court is firmly of the opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, by virtue of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of CPC, the right of the defendants to raise objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit as framed, stands waived. Obviously, if the suit is permitted to be tried by the court where it is pending for last more than 17 years, there will be no failure of justice, to the contrary, at this belated stage, if the plaint is directed to be returned for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, the serious prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff inasmuch as, the proceedings taken for all these years by the court below shall stand set at naught. Moreover, admittedly, in view of the subsequent amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court (S.D.) already stands enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5 lacs and therefore, as on the date, the court where the suit is instituted by the plaintiff, does not even lack the pecuniary jurisdiction. 24. Moreover, admittedly, in view of the subsequent amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court (S.D.) already stands enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5 lacs and therefore, as on the date, the court where the suit is instituted by the plaintiff, does not even lack the pecuniary jurisdiction. 24. Thus, the order impugned passed by the appellate court dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff questioning the legality of order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali directing return of the plaint to the plaintiff for want of pecuniary jurisdiction deserves to be set aside. 25. As noticed above, the parties are litigating for last more than 17 years, yet the proceedings in the suit has not travelled beyond the stage of framing of the issues and therefore, in the interest of justice, the court below deserves to be directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously. 26. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 6.5.15 passed by the District Judge, Pali, affirming the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali is set aside. The application preferred by the defendants under Section 6 read with Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, raising objection regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court shall stand dismissed. The additional issue framed by the trial court shall stand decided accordingly. The court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Pali is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.