O BHASKARA RAO Vs. A SAIBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.668 of 1980 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Visakhaparnam, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property against the first defendant in 1980, On 24-12-1982 the petitioners impleaded the second defendant. The second defendant filed his written statement on 3-3-1987. In the written statement he took the plea that the plaintiffs had under valued the suit and if the suit is valued on the basis of the market value as in 1980, the Court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. On the basis of that plea, three additional issues were framed on 12-3-1987, of which issue No.2, which is relevant for purposes of this revision, is as follows:-

(2.) Mr. M. Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that under Section 11 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the question with regard to court fee and jurisdiction has to be decided before the commencement of the trial. He relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Chillakuri Chenchurami Reddy vs. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy and the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M/s. Rai Bahadur S.S.Durga Prasad vs. State of A.P. Mr. A. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, contends that the second defendant was impleaded after four years of the filing of the suit. He raised the question of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity in his written statement and immediately thereafter he applied for determination of that issue. He did not even cross-examine the witness. Therefore, the commencement of the trial has no effect so far as the second defendant is concerned.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the order under revision is sustainable in law.