UMARABBA Vs. PATHUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has come up in the list of orders cases for orders on the memo filed by the Advocate for the Petitioner stating that no notice of the civil revision petition is necessary to be issued to respondents 2 and 6, as they were absent and exparte in the trial Court. Memo is allowed at the risk of the petitioner. Notice to respondents 2 and 6 is dispensed with. The civil revision petition itself is heard for final disposal with the consent of the advocates,

(2.) The order dated 18-9-1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore on I. A. No. 7 in O. S. No. 50 of 1978 is challenged.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner defendent filed his written statement in the said suit and raised a contention that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee. Issue No. 6 was cast in this behalf. Petitioner defendant filed I. A. No. 7, requesting the Court to hear issue No. 6 as a preliminary issue. The Civil Judge has, by the impugned order, rejected this request.