The judgment clarified that an objection of limitation does not constitute an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court and emphasized the need to provide parties with an opportunity to adduce evidence on preliminary issues involving mixed questions of law and fact.

JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---A suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30th August, 1980 has been filed by the first respondent to which the applicant herein is the first defendant. The suit was instituted in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 16th January, 1998 and is pending. In the suit, the applicant has filed a written statement.

2. A preliminary objection was sought to be urged on behalf of the applicant to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the trial Court was requested to frame a preliminary issue on the question of limitation. A perusal of the application filed before the trial Court would show that a fairly detailed analysis of facts was sought to be presented in the application on the basis of which it was urged that the suit was barred by limitation. In reply thereto, the first respondent contended that the application was filed merely to delay the trial of the suit and that the application which was presumably under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was misconceived. The first respondent submitted that the determination of the question of limitation in this case involves an enquiry into matters of fact which were in dispute, upon which evidence would have to be adduced at the trial of the suit.

3. By the order dated 27th August, 2001, the trial Court is of the view that the suit is ripe for the framing of issues and that the objection of the applicant to the effect that the suit is barred by limitation, will be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that there was no necessity to frame a preliminary issue and accordingly, dismissed the application at Exhibit 45. The applicant seeks to impugn the order of the learned trial Judge.

4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied on the provisions of section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which came to be inserted by the Maharashtra Amendment of 1977. Section 9-A provides as follows:

“9-A. Where at the hearing of application relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken, such issue to be decided by the Court as a preliminary issue.- (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.”

5. The provisions of section 9-A have been considered by a judgment of this Court in (Meher Singh v. Deepak Sawhney)1, 1999(1) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)107. Chief Justice M.B. Shah (as the learned Judge then was), while delivering the judgment of the Division Bench referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the bill for introducing the proposed amendment by the introduction of section 9-A. The Statement of Objects and Reasons took note of the fact that in a judgment of this Court reported in (1958(60) Bom.L.R. 660)2, it had been held that the Bombay City Civil Court for the purpose of granting interim relief in a suit need not go into the question of jurisdiction. Declaratory suits were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document