1. In view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court (CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) and directions given by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, the present matter was placed before us for resolving following issue :-

ISSUE

Whether Section-9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) in relation to its applicability in the State of Maharashtra, stands repealed by Section-32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act 1999) i.e. Central Act No.46 of 1999 and/or by Section-16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 i.e. central Act No.22 of 2002 ?

2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are as under :- A suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.895 of 2005 was filed against the present applicant in the Court of CJSD, Solapur for declaration and injunction. Application Exh-5 was also filed for temporary injunction. The present applicant-original defendant filed application under section-9A of CPC and contended that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the said suit and as such issue with regard to jurisdiction be decided first. The learned Trial Judge decided the said issue as a preliminary issue in terms of Section-9A of CPC, in favour of Plaintiff. Hence, original defendant i.e. present applicant filed Civil Revision Application No.54 of 2006 in this Court and challenged the order passed by the Trial Court.

3. In the meantime, the learned Single Judge of this Court (D.G. Karnik, J.) while deciding Writ Petition No.10602 of 2004 had passed an order on 14/03/2006 whereby it was held that Section-9A of CPC as applicable to State of Maharashtra stands repealed by Section-32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and also by Section-16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2002.

4. While hearing CRA-54 of 2006 the learned Advocate for the Applicant argued before the learned Single Judge (CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) that the view expressed in the above mentioned Writ Petition is not correct and there is in fact no inconsistency or collision between the provision of Section-9A and provision of Central (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Central (Amendment) Act, 2002. It was argued that Section-9A of CPC is in addition or supplemental to the relevant provision of the Code and as such it can not be said that the said provision stands repealed. It seems that during the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the Respondent also fairly conceded that the issue needs indepth consideration. The learned Single Judge (CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) also found that the provision of Section-9A is not inconsistent with Central Act and the judgement in Writ Petition No.10602 of 2004 dated 14/03/2006 requires in depth consideration. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for seeking direction for referring the above mentioned issue to a larger Bench. When the Registry placed the matter accordingly before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship was pleased to direct to place this matter before this Bench. Thus, we are required to resolve the above issue.

5. In order to answer the above referred issue correctly, it is first necessary to see the relevant provisions, concerning the said issue. It is, therefore, first necessary to see what Section-9A of CPC says. It runs as follows :-

“9A-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 e