The trial court has the discretion to decide an issue as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a civil revision against the refusal to decide an issue as a preliminary issue is not maintainable.

S.B. Sinha, J.

This application is directed against an order dated 23.3.1991 passed by Sri Abhay Kumar, Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 64 of 1986, whereby and hereunder he refused to decide the question of pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff-opposite parties filed a suit, inter alia, for declaration of title in respect of the lands in question which have been described in Schedule-A of the plaint with structure standing thereon and also for a decree of confirmation of possession and in the alternative, if it is found that the plaintiffs are not in possession, for a decree of recovery of possession. The plaintiffs-opposite parties have valued the suit lands at Rs.1000/- but according to the defendants-petitioners, however, the value of the suit land would be Rs.4000000/- and thus beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned court below.

4. By reason of the impugned order, the learned court below has refused to decide the said issue as a preliminary issue.

5. Mr. Dilip Jerath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the learned court below committed an illegality in holding that the court is bound to accept the value of the suit properties as given by the plaintiffs in view of a decision of this Court in Prem Kishori Devi v. State of Bihar, reported in 1981 BECJ 531 : 1982 PLJR 256.

6. According to Mr. Jerath, the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the suit does not comes within the purview of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act.

In view of the fact that the suit land comprises of 87 decimals all situate at Hatia and valuation of the suit land by the plaintiffs must be held to be totally arbitrary.

7. The learned counsel, in this connection has relied upon a decision in D. Pattawal v. K. Kalyanasundram, reported in AIR 1989 Madras 78, Mitsubisbi France v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 1985 Madras 300, A.E. Appanna Setty & Sons v S.S. Malimath, reported in AIR 1962 Mysore 108, Janki Das v. Dalu Ram, reported in AIR 1936 Patna 250 and in Bbimnath Mishra v. Jagamath Prasad, reported in AIR 1925 Patna 674.

8. Mr. B.Y. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that the learned court below by reason of the impugned order had not decided the preliminary issue, the same is not a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, this Court should not exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that Order XIV, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure applies in a case where a suit can be decided only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and not in a case where for the purpose of determination of such a issue, evidences has to be taken.

The learned counsel, in this connection, has strongly relied upon a decision in Dharamvir Virmani v. Union of India, reported in 1976 BLJR 324, Ramdayal Umraomal v. Fannalal Jagannathji, reported in AIR 1979 M.P. 153, Ram Sanjiwan Singh v. Bhola Prasad Thakur, reported in 1990 BBCJ 216 and in Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Gopal Singh Visharad, reported in AIR 1991 Allahabad 89.

10. There cannot be any doubt that even when the relief claimed by the plaintiffs comes within the purview of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, the valuation of the suit properties put by the plaintiffs cannot be arbitrary.

11. In this case, however, as the plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration of their title and confirmation and/or recovery of possession, exfacie, the suit comes within the purview of Section 7 (v) (e) of the Court Fees Act and not under Section 7 (iv) (e) thereof.

12. There cannot be any doubt that in terms of Order XIV. Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is no longer, obligatory on the part of the trial court to determine jurisdictional issue as a preliminary is