B. Veerappa, J.

The first defendant filed the present writ petition against the order dated 23.07.2014 on IA No. 11 made in O.S. No.70/2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, rejecting the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC' ).

2. The respondents who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed O.S.No.70/2014 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties contending that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and there was no partition in the joint family and therefore, he is entitled for? the share in the suit schedule properties. The first defendant filed the written statement, denied the entire plaint averments and contended that the first defendant got the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 04.05.1991 and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. When the matter was posted for framing of issues, the first defendant filed IA No. 11 under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) of the CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of undervaluation of the suit property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Contending that the suit was undervalued on the date of presentation of the plaint, with an ulterior motive to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the court, with an intention to obtain an ex parte order of temporary injunction. It is further contended that plaintiffs did not file correct and proper valuation slip along with the plaint. The valuation slip that was filed was false and self serving, without any basis for market value of the suit schedule properties. Subsequently, the plaint ' B- schedule properties were included in the suit, without proper valuation on the basis of the market value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction etc. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 23.07.2014, rejected the application filed by the first defendant. Hence the present writ petition is filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Sri. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the first defendant-petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order. The same is passed without verifying the pleadings and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and contended that the trial Court totally neglected the valuation slip as well as the pleadings of the petitioner in paragraph No. 5 of the written statement by which the petitioner has specifically brought to the notice of the Court below with regard to market value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. He further contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit which is an important issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the court which cannot be neglected by the trial Court. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court by allowing the writ petition.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of ' M/s. Vasudeva Rao and Sons, Bangalore and another v. Smt. Prathiba Devi and others' reported in 2014 (3) KCCR 2031 to the effect that when a specific contention is taken in the written statement with regard to the jurisdiction, the trial Court would frame issues both on the questions of fact and law and after framing the issue the trial Court has to try it as a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

7. Per contra, Sri. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs sought to justify the impugned order and strenuously contended that the plaint can not be rejected in view of defence taken in the application or in the written statement. The plaint