Bombay High Court
SHIVKUMAR NANDKUMAR PILAJI AND ANOTHERversusPRASHANT SANTOSHKUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The trial court correctly rejected the application to frame a preliminary issue because the suit was within its pecuniary jurisdiction.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur's order rejecting their application to frame a preliminary issue in a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. The trial court held that the suit, valued at Rs.1,000 with a court fee of Rs.200, fell within its pecuniary jurisdiction, rendering a preliminary issue unnecessary. The High Court agreed that the trial court correctly rejected the application as the suit was within its monetary limits. The petitioners sought a direction for the trial court to decide the suit promptly. Consequently, the High Court directed the trial court to decide the suit within one year and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Civil Judge Junior Division had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thus whether a preliminary issue on jurisdiction should be framed
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- preliminary issue
- pecuniary jurisdiction
- civil suit
- injunction
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14224
Dilwale 1 44-WP-11887-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
44 WRIT PETITION NO. 11887 OF 2017
Shivkumar Nandkumar Pilaji And Another
VERSUS
Prashant Santoshkumar Shukla And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Deshmukh Rajendra S.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. M. P. Kale h/f P. N. Muley
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18.03.2026
PER COURT :
1. The present petition challenges the order dated 24.08.2017 passed
below Exhibit-36 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur in RCS No. 40 of
2016, whereby the application filed by petitioners for framing a
preliminary issue came to be rejected.
2. Upon perusal, it appears that the suit is for declaration of
ownership and perpetual injunction, and the Respondent Nos. 1 to
3/original plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs.1,000/- and court fee of
Rs. 200/- is paid thereon. There is no need to frame preliminary issue of
jurisdiction as the suit is within pecuniary limits of the trial Court.
3. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the said
application.
4. However, both the learned counsel submit that the suit is of the
year 2016 and purpose would be served if this Court directs the learned
Dilwale 2 44-WP-11887-17.odt
trial Court to decide the suit within stipulated period.
5. In view of the above, the learned trial Court is directed to decide
Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2016 within a period of one year from today.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…