[2025:RJ-JP:21493] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7933/2025 1. Ramesh Sharma Son Of Dhannalal, R/o Village Aasawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2. Shyam Lal Son Of Dhannalal, R/o Village Aasawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 3. Sunita Sharma D/o Dhannalal W/o Girraj Sharma, R/o Plot No. D-27, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Lachchma Devi W/o Late Dhanna, R/o Village Aasawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners/plaintiffs Versus 1. Shrimat Mahaveer Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Registered Office 12, Raghu Vihar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Director Shri Radheyshyam Sharma S/o Gauri Lal Sharma R/o 379, Secretariat Nagar, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Sub-Registrar, Sanganer First, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Goyal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 21/05/2025 : Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dt.19.02.2025 passed by the Court of ld. Additional District Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I Headquarter Sanganer, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant No.1 under Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C. was partly allowed and the Issue No.7 was ordered to be decided as the preliminary issue after recording the evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:21493] (2 of 2) [CW-7933/2025] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that earlier to the aforesaid application, the defendants/respondents have also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., wherein the objections have been raised with regard to the insufficient Court fee & jurisdiction and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2012 by the ld. Trial Court while observing that since Issue No.7 is a mixed question of law & fact and in such a situation only as per the evidence the same can be adjudicated. Heard. Perused the impugned order as well as the material made available on record. From perusal of the order dt.26.09.2012, it is clear that the ld. Court below while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has already given a findings on the issue of jurisdiction as well as Court fees. The ld. Trial Court is not justified in directing to decide the Issue No.7 as a preliminary issue as in the order dated 26.09.2012 the findings in this regard have already been given. Looking to the overall facts & circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made at bar & perusing the orders dt.26.09.2012 & dt.19.02.2025, this Court is of the view that the ld. Trial Court is not justified in passing the impugned order dt.19.02.2025 and therefore, the order dt.19.02.2025 deserves to be quashed & set- aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt.19.02.2025 is hereby quashed & set aside. The ld. Trial Court is directed to decide all the issues after recording the evidence in accordance with law. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. saurabh