ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2.8.2022 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-II, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.S-39A/2021, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to decide the issue about the jurisdiction and court-fee as preliminary issues was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed civil suit for vacant possession of the suit property after demolition of the house and after dispossession of the defendant. It was averred that the plaintiff/respondent is elder brother of the petitioner/defendant. It was further averred that the suit property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 25.1.1984 and the petitioner/defendant has entered to the suit property as a tenant since 25th March, 2014 on consideration of Rs.500/- monthly rent. The plaintiff/respondent has valued the suit on the basis of demolition of the house to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and 20 times of the revenue fixed at the rate of Rs.11/- to the tune of Rs.210/-, total valuation of the suit was made of Rs.10,210/-. The petitioner/defendant has filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC for treating the issues No.3 and 4 about the jurisdiction and valuation as preliminary issues, but by the impugned order the trial Court has held that the said issues are to be decided with other issues framed. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr.Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, would submit that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. He would further submit that if the suit would have been valued correctly, then the Court of Civil Judge Class-II will not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The issue is preliminary in nature and it will go to the root of the matter. The trial Court could not postpone the determination of these issues because to decide at the end of the trial to hold that the suit is not properly valued, it would mean waste of time of the Court and the parties. The very nature of these issues require that they must be determined first, before the other issues are tried. He placed reliance of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sathyanath and another v. Sarojamani reported in (2022) 7 SCC 644. He further placed reliance of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Jham Singh Sobharam Lodhi reported in 1976 MPLJ 584.

4. Per contra, Mr.A.N.Bhaka, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would support the impugned order. Upon being asked, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that as he has pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant has entered into the suit property as a tenant and specific provision for valuation of the suit between landlord and tenant has been given, but the plaintiff/respondent has not made valuation as per such terms. However, Mr.Bhakta submits that the suit has been valued property as per Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (for short ‘Act of 1870’) as the land forms paying annual revenue to Government.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition.

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sathyanath (supra) has observed as under:-

“33. We find that the order of the High Court to direct the learned trial court to frame preliminary issue on the issue of res judicata is not desirable to ensure speedy disposal of the lis between parties. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code had salutary object in mind that mandates the Court to pronounce judgments on all issues subject to the provisions of sub-Rule (2). However, in case where the issues of both law and fact arise in the same suit and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that suit fir