The court emphasized the importance of complying with the requirements of the special statute and the need to decide jurisdictional questions before recording evidence.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17-9-1988 passed on i. A.-VII by the Principal Munsiff and I Additional j. M. F. C. Ranebennur, in O. S. No. 133 of 1981.

( 2 ) THE essential facts may be stated thus: the suit was Filed by respondent-1 for the following reliefs:" (A) Plaintiff prays that it be declared that the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to run and manage and to do ail other necessary administrative and supervisory powers over the staff and over the funds and to control over the asset of the suit College (and to be in possession of all the properties, movable and immovable pertaining to the suit College); (b) The defendants or any one on their behalf be permanently restrained from interfering with the administration and the management and other activities of the suit College run by the plaintiff; (c) It be declared that all appointments of the staff or assignment of jobs etc. , done by the defendants any liability if incurred by the defendants on behalf of the suit College after 3-4-1981 independently, as null and void, and the same are not binding on the plaintiff; (d) It is prayed for an order of prohibitory injunction against defendants not to indulge themselves in the activities parallel or contrary to the suit College, using the similar name in ranebennur City; (e) Defendants be ordered to pay the costs of this suit to the plaintiff, and any other relief which the Court deems fit. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner, who is defendant-1, raised several objections in his written statement out of which certain objections are relevant for the purpose of this case. In para-6 of the written statement, defendant-1 contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit and that it was alleged by the plaintiff in paras-10 and 11 of the plaint that it had already invested more than rs. 1,00,000/- and that the plaintiffs prayer was for declaration of the assets etc. , and hence the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the succeeding para of the written statement, defendant-1 contended that the plaintiff had alleged that it invested Rs. 1,00,000/- on the site and that it had claimed a declaration and, therefore, the plaintiff is bound to pay Court fee under section 24 (a) and (b) of the Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). These are the only averments to be found in the written statement filed by defendant-1.

( 4 ) IT is necessary to mention at this stage, an order passed by the trial Court on a check slip which was issued by the Court Fee Examiner requesting the Court to collect the deficit Court-fee of Rs. 50/- from the plaintiff. It is obvious that the Court-fee Examiner had pointed out a deficiency in the course of the inspection of the records of the court in order to examine the correctness of representations made to and orders passed by the Court on question relating to valuation of subject matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in that Court under the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act. Proceeding to pass an order on the request made by the Court-fee Examiner, a detailed order was passed by the trial Court as required under Section 17 (2) of the Act on 5-8-1986. By that time, the issues had not yet been framed by the Court. It is admitted that the issues were framed on 9-8-1987. In the order passed by the trial Court it was held that there is no merit in the objection raised by the Court Fee Examiner and it was not justifiable to recover the alleged deficit court fee of Rs. 50/ -.

( 5 ) AFTER the issues were framed and evidence was let in partly, by the examination of the plaintiff on 9-10-1987 and the case being adjourned to 7-11-1987, the petitioner filed I. A.-VII insisting upon the disposal of issue Nos. 3 and 4 which, according to the petitioner, are the preliminary issues which the trial Court ought to have disposed of in accordance with Order 14, Rule 2 of the c. P.