JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The plaintiff had filed civil suit praying for decree for eviction and for other ancillary reliefs. The civil suit was registered as small cause civil suit and tried by Civil Judge (Junior Division). The trial Court decreed the civil suit. The respondent filed appeal under section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The learned Principal District Judge, by the impugned judgment, has partly allowed the appeal. The learned Principal District Judge concluded that the civil suit filed by the petitioner ought to have been tried and decided by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had no jurisdiction to try and decide the civil suit. The learned Principal District Judge has set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and has remitted the matter to the trial Court with direction that it should be allotted to Civil Judge (Senior Division) for fresh trial. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this judgment has filed the present petition. 4. Shri J. J. Chandurkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who tried and decided the civil suit was not invested with powers of Small Cause Court and therefore, civil suit was tried by him as regular civil suit. The learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the valuation of the claim of the plaintiff in the civil suit was Rs. 20,700/- and at that time the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the civil suits valued up to Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore, the civil suit was maintainable in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It is argued that the learned Principal District Judge has misread the provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and has misconstrued the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radheshyam vs. District Judge, reported in 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 399. It is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and as the other points which fell for consideration in appeal are not delved into by the learned Principal District Judge, the matter be remanded to the District Court for deciding the appeal on merits. 5. It is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and as the other points which fell for consideration in appeal are not delved into by the learned Principal District Judge, the matter be remanded to the District Court for deciding the appeal on merits. 5. Shri Dhondarkar, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that as per the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak (supra) the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is competent to decide the civil suits which fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes upto the valuation of Rs. 6,000/- and as the valuation of claim of the plaintiff in the civil suit was Rs. 20,700/-, the civil suit could not have been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The learned advocate has submitted that the civil suit is not tried by the learned trial Judge as Regular Civil Suit but is tried as Small Cause Civil Suit. It is submitted that the conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge are proper and the impugned judgment does not require any interference. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs. 6. After considering the rival contentions and after examining the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak (supra), I find that the conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge are erroneous and unsustainable. The submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the civil suit is tried as small cause civil suit cannot be accepted. The judgment passed by the trial Court shows that the civil suit is tried as regular civil suit after following the procedure laid down for trial of the regular civil suit. In the judgment given in the case of Devidas vs. Ajesh, reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 62 this Court has held that the categorization of the civil suit as small cause civil suit or regular civil suit is not relevant and what is required to be considered is how the civil suit is tried. Therefore, merely because the civil suit was registered as small cause civil suit it cannot be said that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the civil suit when the record shows that the civil suit is tried as regular civil suit. 7. Therefore, merely because the civil suit was registered as small cause civil suit it cannot be said that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the civil suit when the record shows that the civil suit is tried as regular civil suit. 7. The conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not have tried the civil suit as he was not invested with powers of the Small Causes Court and he could not have entertained and tried the civil suit valued above Rs. 6,000/-, are also unsustainable. The learned Principal District Judge has committed an error in recording that the provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are attracted. In the present case, the provisions of section 33(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 will be applicable. Section 33(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 lays down that if the valuation of the civil suit is upto the limit of the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), then he can entertain and decide the civil suit. The Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment given in the case of Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak (supra) has clarified that if the Court of Small Causes is not established at a particular place or the High Court, exercising powers under section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, has not invested any Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes for the trial of civil suits cognizable by such Courts, then the ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred upon the Civil Judge (Junior Division) or the Civil Judge (Senior Division) will be available to the parties and the civil suit will have to be tried by the Civil Judge as Regular Civil Suit depending upon the pecuniary limits of the Civil Judge as provided by section 24 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act. The conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge are unsustainable. 8. After examining the documents placed on the record of the petition, I find that the point of jurisdiction was not raised by the defendant before the trial Court. Of course, if the point raised by the party goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the matter, it can be considered at any stage. 8. After examining the documents placed on the record of the petition, I find that the point of jurisdiction was not raised by the defendant before the trial Court. Of course, if the point raised by the party goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the matter, it can be considered at any stage. However, the point raised by the defendant is of such a nature that it is required to be pleaded and proved. The present respondent had not raised this point even in the memo of appeal filed before the District Court. This point is raised subsequently by filing an application. 9. I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be set aside. As the learned Principal District Judge has not dealt with other points, it would be appropriate that the matter is remitted to the District Court for deciding the appeal on merits. 10. Hence, the following order :- i. The impugned judgment is set aside. ii. The appeal is remitted to the learned Principal District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh. iii. As the appeal is of 2009, the learned Principal District Judge or the Court to which the appeal may be made over shall dispose the appeal till 30th September, 2016 as it was already taken up for final hearing when the preliminary objection came to be raised by the respondent. iv. The petitioners and the respondent shall appear before the learned Principal District Judge on 5th August, 2016 and abide by the further orders in the matter. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The respondent shall pay costs of Rs. Ten Thousand to the petitioner and produce receipt on record of the appeal before District Court on 5th August, 2016. If the receipt showing payment is not produced, the learned District Judge shall consider it to be noncompliance of the order passed by this Court and pass appropriate orders.