The High Court will not interfere with a trial court's determination of its pecuniary jurisdiction unless the trial court has committed a jurisdictional error.

In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 25.05.2021 in O.S.No.176/2015 on the file of

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur.

3

2.

The factual matrix for adjudication of this writ

petition is that the petitioners herein are the defendants in

O.S.No.176/2015. The plaintiff has filed the suit for

partition and separate possession in respect of the subject

land. The defendants/petitioners herein have filed detailed

written statement and contended that the trial Court has

no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground of

pecuniary jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the trial

Court considered issue No.3 as ‘preliminary issue’ with

regard to pecuniary jurisdiction and after considering the

material on record, by its order dated 25.05.2021 had

come to the conclusion that the said Court is having

jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being aggrieved by the

same, the defendants/petitioners herein have presented

this writ petition.

3.

I have heard Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa,

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chaitanyakumar

C. M., learned counsel for the respondent.

4

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that as per Annexure-E, the value of the land is

Rs.3,36,000/- per acre and therefore, the trial Court has

no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further contended

that the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to

the well established principle of law with regard to Section

15 of the Civil Procedure Code.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

sought to justify the order passed by the trial Court.

6.

A short question for consideration in this writ

petition

is

whether

the

suit

filed

by

the

plaintiffs/respondents herein is maintainable before the

trial Court. In this regard, the trial Court after considering

the material available on record and the evidence adduced

by the parties, particularly, the evidence of DW.1, had

come to the conclusion that the value of the subject land is

Rs.1,25,000/- per acre and the value of the irrigation land

is Rs.3,36,000/-. The trial Court after considering the

material on record had come to the conclusion that the

5

defendants/petitioners herein have not produced any

document to show that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the

Court is barred and therefore, has rightly came to the

conclusion by rejecting the contention raised by the

defendants/petitioners herein. It is also well established

principle of law that exercising of power under Article 227

of Constitution of India is very limited and this Court has

to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial

Court only when there is a jurisdictional error committed

by the trial Court.

7.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.

Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal And Others reported

in AIR 2020 SC 3433, has held that the High Court

should be slow while exercising the power under Article

227 of the Constitution of India though the powers under

Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and

only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the

bounds of their authority. Following the law declared by

the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion, that the

6

finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and

does not call for interference in this writ petition.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of

merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR