PRADEEP VAIKUNTH KAMAT Vs. VITHAL SHAMBA SHETYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri U. Tari, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Bicholim, in Special Civil Suit No. 42/2007/A whereby an application filed by the petitioner to treat the issue no.2 as a preliminary issue came to be rejected.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri U. Tari, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 has supported the impugned order. The learned Counsel has pointed out that as far as first relief sought by the respondents in the suit is to the effect that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are null and void which is a matter to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided at this preliminary stage. Shri U. Tari, learned Counsel did not dispute the fact that the issue of tenancy arises on the basis of the pleadings in the suit and as such the issue ought to have been framed by the learned Judge in the said suit. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the question of referring the issue to the learned Mamlatdar does not arise as according to him the application filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 under Section 8A of the Agricultural Tenancy Act is pending for adjudication before the concerned Mamlatdar. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the above petition deserves to be rejected.