Issue of pecuniary jurisdiction must be tried as preliminary issue if determineable without full-fledged trial.

The petitioners (Defendants 5 and 6) purchased the suit property via a registered sale deed in 1984

In the underlying original suit (O.S.No.19/2017), the petitioners filed an application (I.A. No. 6) asserting that the Trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the property had been converted from agricultural to industrial use, significantly increasing its value

The Trial Court framed an additional issue regarding valuation and court fees but declined to treat it as a preliminary issue, ruling that it should be decided alongside other issues during a full trial

The petitioners challenged this deferment via a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether an issue regarding the valuation of the suit and the resulting pecuniary jurisdiction of the court must be tried as a preliminary issue rather than being relegated to a final adjudication

2. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to determine the question of pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue was contrary to established precedent

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, in conjunction with Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the court's duty to decide issues of law or jurisdiction as preliminary matters

principles established by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Venkatesh R. Desai vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and Others (W.P.No.8087/2018), which held that while not every court fee issue is preliminary, those touching upon the court's jurisdiction that could dispose of the suit should be determined early

The High Court found that the Trial Court’s approach was legally flawed because the objection raised was not a simple dispute over the adequacy of fees, but a fundamental challenge to the court's competence to hear the case

The court reasoned that since the petitioners provided factual grounds—specifically the change in land nature from agricultural to industrial—the determination of this issue could potentially obviate the need for a full-scale trial

Forcing parties to undergo a protracted trial before a court that might ultimately lack jurisdiction wastes judicial resources and defeats the purpose of procedural rules intended to expedite jurisdictional determinations

The court emphasized that the Trial Court should have allowed limited evidence specifically focused on valuation rather than deferring the matter entirely

The court held that the issue of valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction must be tried as a preliminary issue

The matter was remitted to the Trial Court with directions to permit limited evidence on the question of valuation and to decide I.A. No. 6 within three months

All other contentions on the merits of the suit remain open for later adjudication