Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magadi filed by the first respondent seeing for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to allot 1/7th share in favour of the plaintiff and also to restrain the 9th defendant who is the petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 property.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued in O.S.No.82 of 2007, the petitioner filed detailed statement of objections denying the claim made by the plaintiff and also made an application in I.A.No.1 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In support of his contention, the petitioner has contended that the market value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.15,80,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs and eighty thousand). Therefore, 1/7th share of the schedule property exceed Rs.2,25,000/-. Hence, the learned Civil Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed objections to the said application contending that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is maintainable. Further, the contention of the defendant that as on the date of filing of the suit, the market value of the suit schedule properties is more than Rs.15,80,000/- is not correct and the learned Civil Judge can maintain the suit. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 17-12-2008 dismissed the said application holding that the said Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the amendment to Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 which came into effect from 20-8-2007 wherein the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2008 made on I.A. No.1, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Sri. L.M. Ramaiah Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as on the date of filing of the suit i.e., on 6-3-2007, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, but in view of subsequent amendment dated 28-8-2007, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has got pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is contrary to law and facts and sought for setting aside the order dated 17-12-2008.

5. Per contra, Sri T.N. Vishwanath, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff contended that in view of the amendment to Karnataka Civil Courts Act, dated 20-8-2007, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction. He further contended that the issue regarding law to be applied for determining the jurisdiction of the Court whether law existing on the date of institution of the suit or on the date on which the suit comes up for hearing is to be applied as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment in the case of Sudhir G. Angur and Others v. M. Sanjeev and Others (2006 (1) Kar.L.J. 80 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 351: (2006) 1 SCC 141 : 2005 AIR SCW 5916. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magadi.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and other necessary documents.

7. The undisputed facts that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking for 1/7th share in the suit schedule property and the 9th defendant contended that the market value of the property is more than Rs.15,80,000/- and 1/7th share in the schedule property exceeds Rs.2,25,000/-, hence, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no pecun