ORDER 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.8.2016 passed by District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No.4-A/2014, whereby learned District Judge allowed the application filed by the respondents/plaintiff's of the case under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and directed the appellants/defendants not to sell the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs valued the suit Rs.50,00,000/- for pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit so valued is triable by Civil Judge, Class-I and the appellants took the plea in their reply and written statement that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the civil suit, but the District Judge without considering that fact, granted the injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. v. State Bank of India [ 1995 JLJ 609 = 1995 MPLJ 575 ], observed as under :- “For consideration of the existence of a prima facie case, the Court must consider its own jurisdiction while considering the prima facie case. If the Court holds that it does not possess jurisdiction and/or the suit is barred under some provisions of law and/or the suit is otherwise not maintainable, then certainly the Court considering the prima facie case has to hold that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Every Court must bear this aspect in mind and seek its prima facie satisfaction that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit before it proceeds to pass an order injuncting the defendant”. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court also while considering the question of grant of injunction in the case of Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi [(1993)3 SCC 162], held temporary injunction- the Court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of the convenience is in his favour and the refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. 5. It appears from the record that the respondents/plaintiffs valued the suit Rs.50,00,000/- for pecuniary jurisdiction. According to section 6 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 Court of Civil Judge, Class-I have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceeding of a value not exceeding Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 5. It appears from the record that the respondents/plaintiffs valued the suit Rs.50,00,000/- for pecuniary jurisdiction. According to section 6 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 Court of Civil Judge, Class-I have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceeding of a value not exceeding Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The appellants/defendants raised the plea in their reply and written statement that the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, but the District Judge without considering that plea allowed the application of respondents/defendants. While considering the prima facie case, the trial Court is required to consider its own jurisdiction. 6. So keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by learned District Judge is hereby quashed without commenting anything on merits of the case and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction that trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the objection raised by the appellant that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, decide the application of the respondents/plaintiffs of the case filed under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure again. Learned trial Court is expected to decide the application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that the trial Court is free to take its own decision in relation to the question of jurisdiction and competence of the Court to entertain the suit so also for grant of injunction. With the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of. Umesh Trivedi for appellants; Avinash Zargar for respondents No.1 to 4.