( 2026:HHC:18845 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 98 of 2023. Reserved on: 06.05.2026. Decided on : 21 st May, 2026. Parmanand .....Petitioner. Versus Narender Kumar & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder Singh Thakur, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.II, Shimla, H.P. dated 05.01.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Order 7 Rules 10 and 11(b) &d(c) of the CPC was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Will No.38, dated 30.06.1989, of land comprised in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) Khata/Khatauni No. 2/4, Khasra No. 505, measuring 10-6 bigha and Khasra No.576, measuring 1-19 bigha, total 12-5 bigha situated at Mohal Mohari, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. in favour of the defendant is illegal, null and void and further the declaration was sought that the mutation No.467, dated 18.03.2010 attested in favour of the defendant on the basis of Will No.38, dated 30.06.1989 is also illegal and wrong. Further redemption of mortgage created vide mutation No.200, dated 24.09.1989 and possession of the suit land along with permanent prohibitory injunction was sought by the plaintiffs against the defendant. 3. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiffs are sons and daughters of late Smt. Leela Devi wife of late Shri Shalig Ram. Smt. Devki was the wife of late Shri Jeet Ram, who had expired prior to her husband on 20.07.2009. Smt. Leela Devi had expired on 23.08.2010. Smt. Leela Devi had every right to inherit the property of her father late Sh. Jeet Ram being his sole natural legal heir. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Smt. Leela Devi. After the death of Smt. Leela Devi, her estate devolved upon the plaintiffs being 3 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) her natural legal heirs. It is averred that after the death of late Shri Jeet Ram, mutation No. 467, dated 18.03.2010 was attested in favour of Smt. Leela Devi. She was under a bonafide belief that the mutation of whole of the property of her father had been attested in her favour and she was made confident by the concerned revenue ofÏcer that the whole of the property will go to Leela Devi through mutation No. 467. 4. As per the plaintiffs, the deceased Jeet Ram never executed Will No.38, dated 30.06.1989 in favour of the defendant. The said document is a forged document and is result of manipulation and fraud. Defendant was in possession of the suit land on the basis of mortgage. Late Sh. Jeet Ram had mortgaged the suit land in favour of the defendant vide mutation No.200, dated 24.09.1989 for a sum of Rs.13,000/-. Smt. Leela Devi and thereafter the plaintiff remain under a bonafide belief that the defendant is in possession of the suit land on the basis of mortgage and they had no knowledge regarding the Will. It is further averred that the suit land was mortgaged with possession for a sum of Rs.13,000/- in favour of the defendant as such the 4 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) possession of the suit land is lying with the defendant, who had driven the profit out of the suit land. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the mortgage amount to the defendant so that possession of the suit land be reverted back to plaintiffs by way of redemption. 5. As per the plaintiffs, the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The suit is valued at Rs.300/- for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per the revenue assessed on the suit land. Therefore, the suit was filed claiming the reliefs for declaration, redemption of the mortgaged land and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant before the learned trial Court. 6. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections with respect to competence, maintainability, limitation, mis-description etc. On merits, it was averred in the written statement that at the time of attestation of mutation, Smt. Leela Devi had acknowledged the factum of execution of Will dated 30.06.1989 executed by her father late Shri Jeet Ram in favour of the defendant and on the 5 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) basis of afÏdavit sworn by her in presence of the witnesses, mutation of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 505, measuring 10 bigha, 6 biswa and Khasra No. 576 measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa situated at Mohari, Tehsil and District Shimla was attested in the name of the defendant on 18.03.2010. The defendant is coming an absolute owner of the same ever since. Deceased Jeet Ram executed a Will in favour of the defendant out of his free will, love and affection for the reason that the defendant looked after him in his old age. Late Shri Jeet Ram along with his daughter Leela Devi had also borrowed a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the defendant so as to meet their expenditure and in lieu thereof, Jeet Ram had also mortgaged the suit land in favour of the defendant. All the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and denied. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. The defendant filed written statement on 25.02.2020 and after two years from the filing of the written statement, on 18.05.2022, the defendant filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 (b) & (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC for treating the issue with respect to valuation of 6 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) suit and jurisdiction of the Court to try the same as preliminary issue. 8. It was stated in the application that the value of the suit land, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 2/4, Khasra No.505 measuring 106 bigha and Khasra No.476, measuring 1-19 bigha, situated at Mohal Mohari, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P., is not less than Rs.5 cores. Therefore, neither this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case nor the same is valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It is stated that the non- applicants had valued the suit at Rs.300/- for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per revenue assessed on the suit land, whereas the suit has been filed for declaration and possession along with consequential relief of injunction. A clever drafting of plaint can not hoodwink the law and plaintiff cannot put arbitrary valuation of the plaint. Plaintiffs are out of possession as such the suit is not valued properly for the relief of declaration and possession in accordance with Section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fee Act. It is stated in the application that the plaintiffs were required to value the suit at market value of the suit land and afÏx 7 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) the court fee accordingly. Therefore, it was prayed that preliminary issue be framed with respect to the jurisdiction of the court and plaint be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC or returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC. 9. The said application was duly contested by the plaintiffs and it was denied that the suit land measuring 12-5 bighas is not less than five crores. It was denied that the Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same or the same is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The certain circle rate list of the land filed with the application is not applicable in the case in hand. The plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 7 of the H.P. Court Fees Act are not applicable in the present case to assess the market value of the land for the purpose of court fees. 10. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 05.01.2023, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant. 8 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) 11. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court would take into consideration the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Shri Digant vs M/s P.D.T. Trading Co. & others, Civil Appeal No(s).13801 of 2025, has discussed the scope of interference while exercising the power of Article 227 of Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs thereof read as under:- “22. The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a threeJudge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 1 This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, 9 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.” 23. In the case on hand, the appellate court had considered whether the proceeding in detail the issue as to court was justified in trial with the case, without further notice to the defendants, after submission of pursis (Exh.42) by defendants’ counsel, claiming no instructions. After a threadbare analysis and taking into consideration surrounding circumstances, the appellate court held that the trial court had committed no wrong proceeding with the matter court representing with noticed the the that defendants matter. The appellate Court noticed tht the advocate representing the defndants had claimed no instructions but not sought withdrawal of his Vakalatnama and the matter thereafter remained pending for over three months till it was decided in March 2015. In between no effort was made by the defendants to engage another lawyer. Moreover, the defendants did not come up with a case that their lawyer’s notice was not served on them therefore, they could not engage another counsel Besides that, the record also indicated that the intention of the defendants was to delay the proceedings because earlier also the suit had proceeded ex parte against them though, later, those orders were recalled. Therefore, in our view, once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court without any justification procedure went consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived. More so, when the view taken by the appellate Court that defendant cannot take advantage of his own 10 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) wrong was a plausible view based on materials available on record. Hence, in our view, appellate court’s order was not amenable to interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2278 of the Constitution in interfering with well reasoned order of the appellate Court.” 13. Similar law point was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein in paras 15 and 16, it has been held as under: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 11 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:- "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 19. The factum that the counsel for the appellant had applied for the certified copy would show that the counsel for the appellant was aware that the ex-parte decree had been passed on the account of failure to lead defence evidence. This would not, however, be a good ground and reason to set aside and substitute the opinion formed by the trial court that the appellant being incarcerated was unable to lead evidence and another 12 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) chance should be given to the appellant to lead defence evidence. The discretion exercised by the trial court in granting relief, did not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it. There could be some justification for the respondent to argue that the appellant was possibly aware of the ex-parte decree and therefore the submission that the appellant came to know of the ex-parte decree only on release from jail on 6th May 2017 is incorrect, but this would not affect the factually correct explanation of the appellant that he was incarcerated and could not attend the civil suit proceedings from 6th October 2015 to 6th May 2017. If it was felt 30 that the application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed belatedly, the court could have given an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and costs could have been imposed. The facts as known, equally apply as grounds for condonation of delay. It is always important to take a holistic and overall view and not get influenced by aspects which can be explained. Thus, the reasoned decision of the trial court on elaborate consideration of the relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.” 14. Now, in view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court will decide the case in hand. 15. It is contended by Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and not valid in the eyes of law. He submits that the order as passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and it does not meet the requirements of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He submits that after allowing 13 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) the present petition, the application filed by the defendant needs to be allowed. 16. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has defended the impugned order. He submits that while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere with the well reasoned order, which has been passed by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the order as passed by the learned trial Court is legally valid and sustainable in the eyes of law and there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned trial Court. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 18. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed a suit for declaration, possession by way of redemption and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Jeet Ram was owner of the suit land and he was survived by Smt. Leela Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late Smt. Leela Devi inherited the property of her 14 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) father being his sole legal heir. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant has set up a wrong, invalid and fraudulent Will bearing No.38, dated 30.06.1989, which is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the same is forged document and result of manipulation. It is case of the plaintiff that Will dated 30.06.1989 is fabricated one and the same was never executed by said Jeet Ram in favour of the defendant. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that late Shri Jeet Ram had mortgaged the suit land in favour of the defendant vide mutation No.200, dated 24.09.1989 for a sum of Rs.13,000/-. They are ready and willing to pay the said mortgaged amount to the defendant so that they can get the suit land back by way of redemption. Therefore, it is prayed that after declaring the Will dated 30.06.1989 to be null and void, a decree for redemption of the mortgage and possession of the suit land be passed along with a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature and alienating the suit land. 19. The case as set up by the defendant is that the will is legally valid and the same has been executed by late Shri Jeet Ram 15 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) out of love and affection in favour of the defendant for the reason that the defendant had been looking after him in his old age. Further, it is the case of the defendant that late Shri Jeet Ram and his daughter Smt. Leela Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the defendant so as to meet their expenses. Consequently, the suit land was mortgaged in favour of the defendant. It is further the case of the defendant that the Will dated 30.06.1989 executed by late Shri Jeet Ram in favour of the defendant, is a legal and valid Will and all the averments made in the plaint are contrary to the records. 20. It is the case of the defendant that the suit for reliefs of declaration along with consequential relief of possession is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction in accordance with the H.P. Court Fees Act. Further, it is the case of the defendant that the Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit as the value of the suit land is not less than Rs.five crores as such neither the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit nor the same is valued properly for the purpose of 16 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) court fee and jurisdiction, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 21. In the application, which has been filed by the defendant/petitioner, it is contended that the suit has been under valued by the plaintiffs, as a result of which, the plaint deserves to be rejected or be returned to the plaintiffs and with respect to the jurisdiction, preliminary issue should be framed 22. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the decisions in Prithvi Raj Jhingta & Anr. vs. Gopal Singh, AIR 2007 HP 11, Rachna Sharma vs. Meena Kumari Sharma, 2013 (1) Him. L. R. 318 and Sathyanath and another vs. Sarojamani, (2022) 7 SCC 644. 23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondent has relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Agra Dioceasn Trust Association vs. Anil David and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 1722 of 2020, decided on 19.02.2020, Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010, decided on 29.03.2010 and Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani, Civil Appeal No. 3680 of 2022, decided on 17 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) 06.03.2022. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Uday Shankar Prasad vs. Ravi Kumar & Ors, CMPMO No. 85 of 2023, decided on 07.04.2026. 24. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that as per the copy of jamabandi, which has been placed on record, the suit land is assessed to the land revenue. Therefore, the valuation of the suit cannot be assessed on the market value of the suit land. In case the suit land is assessed to land revenue, in that event, the court fee has to be fixed as per the assessment of land revenue. As such, the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Order 7, Rules 11 and 11 (b) & (d) of the CPC is not maintainable and the same has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. 25. This Court is of the considered opinion that the objection regarding under valuation of the suit, does not justify the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC at the threshold. The determination of proper valuation of the suit is not 18 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) a purely legal domain but involves consideration of relevant factual aspects and applicable principles governing valuation of reliefs prayed for. Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC reads as under:- “11. Rejection of plaint:-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufÏciently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp- paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e)where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 26. Perusal of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC stipulates that if the plaint is found to be undervalued, the court is required to afford an opportunity at the first instance to the party to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the court. In case, 19 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) the said direction is not complied with then the rejection of plaint is contemplated in case of failure. The statutory provision clearly indicates that the rejection is not an instant consequence of an objection as to the valuation. The provisions stipulate that in absence of any findings that the valuation is arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions or that the party has failed make good the same, despite direction by the Court, the rejection of plaint cannot be ignored. Therefore, it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue does not fall within the scope of inquiry and domain of provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and the same has rightly been accepted by the learned trail Court for not considering the same as a ground for rejection of the plaint. 27. It is well settled principle of law that the rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power, which has to be exercised sparingly. For the purpose of rejection of plaint, only averments and the body of the plaint has to be considered and the defence as filed by the other side is not to be taken into consideration. Provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the 20 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) CPC are mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint will be rejected, if any of the grounds specified in plaint are not made out. If the court found that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and suit is barred by any law, the plaint has to be rejected. 28. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agra Dioceasn Trust Association vs. Anil David & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1722 of 2020, decided on 19.02.2020, the relevant paragraphs whereof read as under:- “15. It is evident from the above discussion that it is undisputed that the point in issue was with respect to valuation for purposes of court fee; equally, it is not in issue that since the plaintiff (i.e. petitioner herein) sought, in addition to a declaration, in both the suits, decrees of cancellation, the crucial point was what the correct value for purposes of court fee was. Now, market value has been specifically defined, in the context of a litigation like the present one. According to Section 7 (iv-A), in case the plaintiff (or his predecessor-in-title) was not a party to the decree or instrument, the value was to be according to one-fifth of the value of the subject matter, “and such value shall be deemed to be” under Section 7 (iv-A), “if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree is passed or the instrument executed”. Importantly, the explanation 21 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) to Section 7 (iv-A) created a deeming fiction as to what constitutes the “value of the property” by saying that “in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with the sub-section (v), (v-A) or (v-B) as the case may be.” 16. The plaintiff/petitioners’ contention was and continues to be that the value determinable is in terms of clause (v) of Section 7, by reason of Section 7 (iv-A). Section 7 (v) (i) contains two clauses- (a) and (b): both are in respect of revenue paying lands. The petitioner valued its suits on the basis of revenue which according to it, was payable. While so stating, the value (for purposes of court fee) was determined to be ₹ 3000/- in each of the suits.” 29. Since, the suit land is assessed to land revenue, therefore, the contention, as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that it is undervalued, does not hold good. The provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 have been elaborated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani, Civil Appeal No. 3680 of 2022, decided on 06.05.2022, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that there is an obligation cast upon the Court that even though a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Courts shall, subject to the provision of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. In other words, the obligation to decide a question of law as a 22 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) preliminary issue, if that decision disposes of the case or part of the case is no longer, there. Similarly, the discretion to decide any other issue as a preliminary issue has been taken away totally from the Court. On the other hand, a duty is cast upon the Court that it must proceed to hear all the issues and pronounce judgment on the same. 30. In the present case, the plaintiff has challenged the validity of the Will dated 30.06.1989. The parties are at variance on all the issues. The issues as raised in proceedings need full- fledge trial and leading of evidence by the respective parties. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner/defendant that jurisdiction of the court be treated as preliminary issue is not sustainable. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court by passing the impugned order. The court below has passed the impugned order in detail after appreciating the entire case law along with the material facts placed on record. This Court 23 ( 2026:HHC:18845 ) sees no infirmity in the impugned order and there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Court below. 32. In view of above discussions, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 21st May, 2026. (jai)