ORDER : 1. The newly added defendant No.7 M/s Fire Luxur Developers Pvt. Ltd., which was impleaded in civil suit O.S.No.379/2006 and O.S.No.306/2008 filed by the respective plaintiffs, has filed these two writ petitions in this Court which are being disposed of by common order challenging the order dated 18.08.2016, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the applications filed by the said defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing of additional issues with regard to Court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. 2. According to the said defendant, the valuation of land in question was much higher than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur. The reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference: “Case called out. Heard counsel appearing for plaintiff on I.A filed by subsequently added Defendant to frame the additional issue with regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit. The Defendant No.7 who has been subsequently added as party to the suit made application U/o 14 Rule 5 of CPC seeking to frame issue with regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction to this court to entertain the suit. Admittedly this suit is pending on the file of this court since from 2006 and now the said subsequently added Defendant filed the written statement in the year 2016 and sought for framing of issues with regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is well settled law, that the defence of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be taken at an earliest point of time. In any event before settlement of issues. In the instant case the original litigants were already lead evidence and when the matter was posted for arguments by that time the litigants moved interim application and said applications came to be allowed and again the matter was posted for arguments on merits. In that movement the present Defendant No.7 moved an application for seeking impleadment. The said I.A was allowed and he was permitted to came on record. The original litigants were already lead substantial evidence. Therefore, at this stage the question of framing additional issue with regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not arise at all. Hence the I.A filed by Defendant No.7 U/o 14 Rule 5 of CPC is hereby rejected. The said I.A was allowed and he was permitted to came on record. The original litigants were already lead substantial evidence. Therefore, at this stage the question of framing additional issue with regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not arise at all. Hence the I.A filed by Defendant No.7 U/o 14 Rule 5 of CPC is hereby rejected. It is needless to mention here that, the said subsequently added party is at liberty to cross examine the original litigants. For cross examination of PW1 by the Defendant No.7. Call on 25.08.2016.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Madhusudhan Rao, has submitted before the Court that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the said application on the ground that such objection about jurisdiction and Court Fees could have been and should have been raised only at the initial stages and not at the advance stage of trial, when the plaintiffs’ evidence had been recorded and therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. He submits that since the petitioner was impleaded on the basis of its rights as it has subsequently purchased the land in question and Court allowed its impleadment application on 05.06.2015 only and after filing written statement on 19.11.2015, soon thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC on 28.01.2016, which has been erroneously rejected by the learned trial Court on 18.08.2016. 4. Learned opposite counsel, however, submits that according to defendant, the valuation of land has been increased because the land was later on converted from ‘agricultural purpose’ to ‘nonagricultural purpose’ and therefore, the valuation at the time of filing of the plaint in the year 2006 was just and proper and such an objection could not have been raised by later on added defendant No.7/present petitioner company M/s. Fire Luxur Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised by defendant No.7, who was admittedly later on added only on 05.06.2015 goes to the root of the matter and the question of pecuniary jurisdiction deserves to be decided by the learned trial Court as a preliminary question of jurisdiction. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised by defendant No.7, who was admittedly later on added only on 05.06.2015 goes to the root of the matter and the question of pecuniary jurisdiction deserves to be decided by the learned trial Court as a preliminary question of jurisdiction. Even though the said issue has arisen in view of some subsequent developments, since the newly added defendant was bound to be affected by the present suits filed by the plaintiffs seeking cancellation of the earlier sale deed for which the present petitioner company is a subsequent purchaser, therefore, the issues raised by the petitioner company about the pecuniary jurisdiction and Court Fees were relevant and deserves to be determined by the Court below. Therefore, rejection of the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC by the learned trial court cannot be sustainable in these circumstances. 6. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the order dated 18.08.2016. The learned trial court is directed to frame the relevant additional issues after hearing the parties and then decide the same as preliminary issue in accordance with law. 7. The parties may appear before the learned trial court, in the first instance on 03.09.2018 without any further notice and the said application may again be decided by the trial Court under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC within a period of four weeks thereafter.