JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, C.J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.By judgment and order dated 24th April, 1998, the learned Single Judge has referred this matter to a larger Bench for determination of the following issue :--

"Whether while deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction as contemplated under section 9-A the parties are required to be given opportunity to lead evidence?"

3.The Court has referred the matter because in the opinion of the Court, it was of considerable importance as it was generally raised on the Original Side of this Court as well as in the subordinate courts. Section 9-A, which is added to the Civil Procedure Code by an Act known as Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, reads as under :--

"9-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a Receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), at the hearing of any such application, the Court may grant such interim relief as it may consider necessary, pending determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction".

4.The aforesaid section specifically provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if, at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief;

(b) Whether by way of stay;

(c) Injunction;

(d) Appointment of Receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, then if an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit then there is a mandate to the effect that Court shall determine at the time of hearing of such application an issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. There is also specific mandate that such an application with regard to objection of jurisdiction is required to be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible; there is further important direction that such application shall not in any case be adjourned till the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule (2) further empowers the Court to grant interim relief, pending determination of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction.

5.Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that when the said issue is raised for determination, the Court is required to permit the parties to lead evidence. Before the learned Single Judge, decisions in the case of (Kranti Mohan Guruprasad Mehra and another v. Fatechand Vasuram Behal)1, reported in A.I.R. 1982 Bombay 263 and in the case of (Dinyar Behramji Irani v. Kshirsagar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.)2, reported in Bombay 1994(3) Bombay C.R. 264 were relied upon to contend that section 9-A is self-contained scheme with definite object of deciding objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter at the preliminary issue.

6.The learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that it was well established legal position that averments made in the plaint determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the subsequent defence set up by the defendant. He, therefore, disagreed with the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two cases and referred the matter, as stated above to a larger Bench.

7.For deciding the issue we would first refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for adding the said section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document