JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The facts in brief, relevant for decision in the matter, are that the respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for a declaration and injunction being R.C. Suit No. 126 of 1995 against the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 121/1, situated at Hadapsar, Pune. The respondent No. 1 filed an application for interim relief being Exhibit 5 which was rejected by order dated 3-1-1996. Appeal carried against the same also came to be rejected by order dated 22-1-1997. The petitioners thereafter filed a written statement raising various defences, including the point relating to bar of limitation. The issues, including the issue regarding bar of limitation were framed on 1-10-2001. The petitioners thereafter filed an application dated 12-6-2001 under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the C.P.C.") requesting that preliminary issue of limitation be framed and decided as such. The same was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 1-10-2001. The preliminary issue was framed to the effect that: "Whether the suit is filed within limitation?" On the very day, i.e. on 1-10-2001, the respondent No. 1 herein filed an application under section 9-A(2) for grant of injunction pending the disposal of the issue of limitation. However, when the matter came up for hearing before the trial Court on 13-3-2002, the trial Court decided to deal with the said issue of limitation along with the other issues in the suit and not as preliminary issue by the impugned order dated 13-3-2002.

3. The impugned order is sought to be challenged primarily on the ground that the trial Court could not have modified its decision to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without hearing the petitioners and that therefore the impugned order is not only contrary to the basic principles of natural justice, but in breach of the procedure. Secondly, by placing reliance in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Sudesh w/o Sushilkumar Handa v. Abdul Ajiz s/o Umarbhai another)1, reported in 2001(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)2 , it is sought to be contended that the issue of limitation touches the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore is necessarily to be dealt with as a preliminary issue.

4. Section 9 of the C.P.C. provides that the Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Section 9-A of the C.P.C. provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the 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 a 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. It further provides that 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. The provisions of law contained in sub-section (2) of section 9-A empowers the Court to grant any such interim relief as it may consider necessary, pending determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction.

5. Order XIV of the C.P.C. deals with the topic of settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Rule 1 thereof provides that the issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document