Court has to pronounce judgment on all issues.

E. Pushpalatha, the petitioner herein is the defendant. Shanmughasundaram filed a suit for partition contending that his late father and the petitioner herein had purchased the suit property by contributing equal share and after his father's death, he was entitled to the share of his father. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant by filing the written statement raising various grounds including the point relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, though the market value was mentioned in the sale deed as Rs.22,500/-, the actual value was later determined at Rs.93,000/- and the half share of the said value would be Rs.46,500/- and as such, it would bring the suit beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.

2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. One of the issues is regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to take up the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and decide the matter.

3. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the same holding that it could be decided along with the other issues. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order contending that the respondent/plaintiff valued the suit only on the basis of one-half of the value of the sale deed, namely Rs.22,500/- without disclosing the fact that the document was subsequently valued at Rs.93,000/- and this objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction was raised in the written statement itself and as such, under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C., this issue has to be taken as a preliminary issue and decide the same.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions by the counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned order.

6. There is no dispute in the fact that the suit property was purchased for the value of Rs.22,500/- both by the petitioner and the plaintiff's father by contributing equal share through the sale deed dated 11.11.1997. The suit has been filed seeking for partition on 30.6.2000. The written statement has been filed contesting the suit by raising various grounds. It is mentioned in the written statement that though the sale deed dated 11.11.1997 was executed for the sale consideration of Rs.22,500/-, the sale deed was kept pending registration, since the price was valued in accordance with the guideline value and fixed at Rs.93,000/- and the same had not been paid by the father of the plaintiff and ultimately, the defendant alone had paid the stamp duty chargeable on the balance of sale price Rs.70,500/- and got back the original sale deed and as such, the plaintiff's father is bound to contribute his share of the stamp duty to the defendant.

7. In the last paragraph, it is stated that if the suit property has been valued either on the market value or guideline value, the value of the half share in the suit property will be arrived at Rs.46,500/- and therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

8. On this basis, the trial Court framed several issues including this point relating to the market value of the property involving the pecuniary jurisdiction. These issues were framed on 12.2.2001.

9. In June 2001, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. to try the preliminary issue on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction and give a finding thereof. The counter has been filed on 10.10.2001. The trial Court, ultimately after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order on 12.6.2002 dismissing the application holding that the said issue could be decided along with the other issues after trial is over.

10. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the property was valued at Rs.93,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim half share of the property, as it would bring the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction.

11. The learned counsel would cite the de