ORDER 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging order dated 25.9.2023 passed by District judge (28th), Jabalpur in RCS No.340A/2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are plaintiffs and respondents were defendants before trial Court. Appellants and respondents are siblings and son's-daughter's of Manmohan Singh Gill. He met with a road accident while returning from Hyderabad to Jabalpur on 6.5.2017 and thereafter he died. Father of Late Manmohan Singh Gill namely Late Malkiyat Singh has purchased properties. After his death properties passed over to Late Manmohan Singh Gill. Sometime after death of Late Manmohan Singh Gill dispute arose between brothers and sisters regarding partitioning of property. Appellants filed Civil Suit making a prayer that appellants be granted 1/4th part of the properties mentioned in Para-6 of plaint. At the stage of hearing of case, an application was moved by respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Reply to application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed and trial Court after detailed hearing of parties allowed the application and dismissed the suit vide order dated 25.9.2023. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, appellants preferred First Appeal before this Court. 3. Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that trial Court committed an error of law in dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is submitted that appellants being plaintiffs had abandoned their claim over property mentioned in Para - 6(e) of plaint, which is situated in Punjab and there was no occasion for learned trial Court to dismiss the civil suit on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that every suit shall include whole of the claim which plaintiff is entitled to make, but plaintiff may relinquish any portion of claim and due to which suit cannot be dismissed. It was too early for trial Court to decide on non-joinder of parties. As per averments made in the plaint properties from Late Malkiyat Singh devolve upon Late Manmohan Singh Gill and he was the owner of properties in question. Ground raised by respondents in defence that legal heirs of Late Malkiyat Singh were not made party and there is non-joinder cannot be taken into consideration while deciding application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC. Ground raised by respondents in defence that legal heirs of Late Malkiyat Singh were not made party and there is non-joinder cannot be taken into consideration while deciding application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC. Application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC is filed at belated stage and two witnesses were examined. Application at such belated stage is not to be entertained. In view of aforesaid submission counsel appearing for appellant made a prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 25.9.2023 and remand the matter back to trial Court for further proceeding in Civil Suit. 4. Counsel appearing for respondents supported the order passed by trial Court. It is submitted that property mentioned in Para - 6(e) of plaint is situated in village Ramana Chak, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (Punjab), which is beyond territorial jurisdiction of trial Court and same is hit by Order 7 rule 1 (f) of CPC. Particulars of properties have not been mentioned. Plaintiffs are duty bound to give full and complete particulars of properties under Order 7 rule 3 of CPC. It is also submitted that map has not been annexed to the plaint and therefore, suit is not maintainable and hit by Order 7 rule 3 of CPC. Trial Court has rightly decided the issue of non-joinder as other legal heirs of Late Malkiyat Singh were not made party in the case. It is also submitted that plaintiffs pleaded that deceased was having ornaments, cloths and cash regarding which no partition has been claimed in the suit. In absence of including all movable or immovable assets of deceased, relief of partition is not maintainable and hit by Order 7 rule 1 (h) of CPC. Trial Court has rightly considered the issues and dismissed the suit. Prayer is made for dismissal of First Appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. Trial Court held that application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC can be filed at any stage of proceedings. Objection to maintainability of proceedings must be raised at the earliest but an objection regarding Court not having jurisdiction to entertain proceedings over subject matter goes to root of proceedings. Ground of lack of jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage of proceedings. Trial Court gave finding that it does not hold jurisdiction over property situated in Amritsar (Punjab) and therefore, suit for partition regarding said property is not maintainable. 7. Ground of lack of jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage of proceedings. Trial Court gave finding that it does not hold jurisdiction over property situated in Amritsar (Punjab) and therefore, suit for partition regarding said property is not maintainable. 7. No specific finding has been given by trial Court to issue of non-joinder of necessary party. Only discussion has been made regarding issues raised by defendants that necessary parties were not joined. No specific finding has also been given on issue that plaintiff has not made prayer for whole of claim and suit regarding partition of part of property is not maintainable. After going through arguments of appellants and that of respondents and order passed by trial Court, it is found that following issues arises for adjudication before this Court :- Issue No.1 - Whether suit is barred by law i.e. under Order 7 rule 1(f) of CPC as property is situated in Amritsar (Punjab) beyond jurisdiction of trial Court ? Issue No.2 - Whether suit is barred by law under Order 7 rule 3 of CPC as identification of property has not been given ? Issue No.3 - Whether suit is to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party ? Issue No.4 - Whether suit is to be dismissed as whole claim is not pleaded in plaint ? 8. Aforesaid issues are answered accordingly : Answer to Issue No.1 - Section 16 of CPC lays down that suit for partition shall be instituted in Court within local limits or whose jurisdiction property is situated. However, proviso to section 16 lays down that suit can also be filed in a place where relief can be obtained by personal obedience of the defendant where defendant resides. Further section 20 of CPC also lays down that suit may be filed within the local limits of jurisdiction of Court, where defendants resides or where cause of action wholly or in part arises. In this case defendant No.1 lives in Jabalpur and defendant No.2 lives with her husband Major Tarunjeet Singh and his job is transferable, therefore, no place is fixed for his residence. Cause of action arose in Jabalpur when defendants refused to talk with plaintiffs on issue of partition, therefore, it cannot be said that suit suffers from want of jurisdiction as one of the property is situated in Amritsar (Punjab). Other properties are situated in Jabalpur. Cause of action arose in Jabalpur when defendants refused to talk with plaintiffs on issue of partition, therefore, it cannot be said that suit suffers from want of jurisdiction as one of the property is situated in Amritsar (Punjab). Other properties are situated in Jabalpur. Property at Amritsar (Punjab) will also fall within ambit of section 16 and 20 of CPC. Further any objection to jurisdiction of Court is to be taken at first opportunity available to defendant. As per section 21 of CPC objection to jurisdiction of place of suing is to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement unless there has been consequent failure of justice. In this case objection is raised at belated stage i.e. during hearing of case when parties had entered into evidence and belated objection to jurisdiction on Court cannot be allowed to be raised unless same will result in failure of justice. Further lack of jurisdiction that is territorial or pecuniary is not same as want of jurisdiction. It is want of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured. However, lack of jurisdiction can also be waived or party can surrender to jurisdiction of Court. In view of aforesaid discussion issue No.1 is answered in negative and suit filed by plaintiffs appellants is not barred due to want of jurisdiction. Answer to issue No.2 - Properties regarding which partition has been sought is mentioned in Para - 6 of plaint. First property is of two floor house bearing No.76/3, Plot No.65, (Old Khasra No.24/1-2,23), Polipathar, Gwarighat Road, Jabalpur having total area 2687 sq. feet. Property No.2 is situated at Plot No.76/3, Series - A, Narmada Nagar, (Old Khasra No.24/1-2, 23), Polipathar Gwarighat Road, Jabalpur area 2965 sq. feet. Property No.3 is Flat No.307, third floor, Bhasin Arcade, area 965 sq. feet, plot No.501/2 old House No.267 and 268/1, New Number 410-412, Serial No.605 George D'silva Ward, Gorakhpur. Property No.4 is a shop / Flat made on 230 sq. feet, First Floor, Corporation House No.1194/2A, Old No.47/1, Shankarshah Nagar, Mauja Rampur and property No.5 is an agricultural land at Khasra No.4/2/2 situated at village Ramana Chak, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. feet, plot No.501/2 old House No.267 and 268/1, New Number 410-412, Serial No.605 George D'silva Ward, Gorakhpur. Property No.4 is a shop / Flat made on 230 sq. feet, First Floor, Corporation House No.1194/2A, Old No.47/1, Shankarshah Nagar, Mauja Rampur and property No.5 is an agricultural land at Khasra No.4/2/2 situated at village Ramana Chak, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. All the properties can be identified from description given in Para - 6 of plaint, therefore, it is answered in negative that properties cannot be identified and suit is liable to be dismissed. Answer to issue No.3 - Pleadings made in plaint and documents filed alongwith it is to be considered by trial Court while deciding application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC. In Para - 7 of plaint it has been mentioned that property Nos. 1 & 2 mentioned in Para - 6 of plaint were purchased by Late Malkiyat Singh Grand Father of parties and said properties were given to Late Manmohan Singh Gill father of parties and his name was also mutated over the suit properties. Pleadings show that properties were exclusive property of father of parties i.e. Late Manmohan Singh Gill. Pleadings made by defendants that said properties were not exclusive property of Late Manmohan Singh Gill and other legal heirs of Late Manmohan Singh Gill also have share in it cannot be considered by trial Court. On basis of pleadings made in plaint it is found that suit do not suffers from defect of non-joinder of proper party, but issue can be resolved to be considered at final hearing later stage after evidence is adduced by the parties. Issue is answered in negative. Answer to Issue No.4 - Respondents had made a prayer for dismissal of suit as whole claim was not included in the plaint. Scheme of Order 2 Rule 1 and Rule 2 permits plaintiffs to relinquish any portion of claim for bringing suit within the jurisdiction of Court. If whole of claim has not been pleaded in suit, then effect will not be of dismissal of suit, but plaintiffs will be barred from claiming other reliefs which have not been prayed for by them in the plaint in future litigation. 9. In view of answer to aforesaid issues it is found that trial Court had committed error in allowing application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC filed by defendants. 9. In view of answer to aforesaid issues it is found that trial Court had committed error in allowing application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC filed by defendants. In view of above discussion, appeal filed by appellants is allowed and impugned order dated 25.9.2023 passed in RCS No.340-A/2018 is set aside. Case is remanded back to trial Court to proceed further.