JUDGMENT - R.M. KANTAWALA, C.J.:---The defendants have filed this revision application against the finding given by the trial Court upon a preliminary issue holding that the trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed this suit for accounts of a dissolved firm. The partnership business comprised of agricultural operations.

3. The contention of the defendants inter alia in the written statement was that some of the properties owned by the partnership were worth nearly Rs. 2 lakhs and therefore, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The issue as regards pecuniary jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue and it has been answered against the contention of the defendants. The Court held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is against this order passed by the trial Court that the present revision application has been filed by the defendants.

4. Mr. Rege, on behalf of the defendants, submitted that the trial Court was in error in holding that the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division had controversy jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He submitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document