Shree Chandrashekhar,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 31.05.2013 in T.S. No. 125 of 2005 whereby, the Trial Court has held that the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction raised by the defendants is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided as preliminary issue, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The respondents filed T.S. No. 125 of 2006 in the Court of Munsif for a declaration of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property which comprised 31 decimals land in plot no. 77, Khata No. 199. The said land was recorded in the name of Takwa Gowar S/o Bedo Mahto, as Kayami Aadha/Dar in Khatiyan being Khewat No. 1/2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that application dated 11.09.2009 was filed by the defendants for deciding the issue of suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2011. The parties were permitted to lead evidence and though, the defendants produced certified copies of registered sale deeds executed in the year 2003 and 2004, after taking evidence on record, the Trial Court has erroneously refused to decide the question of suit valuation and jurisdiction as preliminary issue. It is submitted that the registered sale deeds which were produced by the defendants, were not denied by the plaintiffs and therefore, after allowing application dated 11.09.2009, the Trial Court was under a duty to decide the issue of the suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction.
(3.) From perusal of application dated 11.09.2009, it appears that the defendants have claimed that they have raised issue of suit valuation in their written statement. However, as on 11.09.2009 issues were not framed in the suit. The defendants have stated that minimum market value of the suit property is Rs. 10,00000/- whereas, the plaintiffs have grossly undervalued the suit property. In application dated 11.09.2009 therefore, the defendants have made a prayer for deciding the issue of suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction. From the impugned order dated 31.05.2013, I find that the parties have produced certified copies of registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs have produced the sale deeds for 5 different properties whereas, the defendants produced 3 sale deeds. The Trial Court after taking note of the registered sale deeds produced by the parties has come to a conclusion that at this stage, in view of the evidence produced by the parties, the issue of the suit valuation and jurisdiction of the Court cannot be decided as preliminary issue. I am of the opinion that merely by producing the documentary evidence but without leading oral evidence in the matter, the defendants cannot insist for deciding the said issue as a preliminary issue. The petitioners/defendants have filed written statement and thus, the issue of suit valuation and jurisdiction can be decided as a preliminary issue only after the issues are framed in the suit. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the issue of the suit valuation is a mixed question of law and fact. Moreover, at this stage only when the Court finds that the plaintiff has valued the suit arbitrarily, the Court may pass appropriate orders. Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad & Anr. (1987)4 SCC 69 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction by entertaining the petition, the issue of valuation must have been decided by the Trial Court. The said contention is liable to be rejected. As noticed above, the Trial Court on appreciating the facts and the documents produced by the parties came to a conclusion that the issue of suit valuation cannot be decided. The Trial Court has rightly declined to decide the said issue as a preliminary issue. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.05.2013 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;