SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. :- In the case of Ujawalaben Mahindra Shah and another vs. Kesharchand Gulabchand and others, 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 378 = 2001 (Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. 778, learned single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad Bench took the view that objection with regard to maintainability of a suit, on the plea that the plaintiff, a partnership firm, was not a registered partnership firm and thus the suit was hit by the provisions of section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, was not a pure question of law and thus could not be tried and decided as a preliminary issue. In this case, the objections of the defendants in the suit was that there was no firm in the plaintiff's name registered with the Registrar of Firms at the time of filing of the suit and a firm with the name of "M/s Kesharchand Gulabchand Munot" was in existence and subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff had approached the Registrar of Firms for deletion of the name "Munot" from the firm's name. Thus, the suit was not maintainable and the trial Court ought to have taken note of the fact and decided it as a preliminary issue. On the pleadings of the parties in that suit, the following issue was framed.

"Does plaintiff prove that it is a registered partnership firm with Registrar of Firms?"

The application filed by the defendants in the suit for deciding this issue as a preliminary issue was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10th April, 2000 which was impugned before the High Court. The learned single Judge noticed difference of opinion between two learned single Judges' in the case of Kranti Mohan Guruprasad Mehra and another vs. Fatehchand Vasuram Behal, 1983 Mh.L.J. 141 and the view of another single Judge in the case of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Limited, Pune vs. Bhujang Krishnaji Kohale, 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 652, and also discussing the impact of section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by Maharashtra State amendment to the Code held that this issue was not with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court but maintainability of the suit before the Court and as such could not be tried as a preliminary issue at the threshold.

Resultantly, the revision application was dismissed.

2. In the case of Arjun Dada Gadage vs. Mallapa Gurappa Chougule and another, 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 256 = 2004(1) Bom.C.R. 741, another learned single Judge of the Court, while referring to the cases of Meher Singh vs. Deepak Sawhny, 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 940 and Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GMBH vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd., 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 453 = 2003(2) Bom.L.R. 547, expressed a somewhat divergent view and held that the provisions of section 9-A of the Code, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, was not in conflict with the provisions of Order 14 of the Code. In the appeal filed before the Appellate Court, an objection was raised that the presentation of the suit before the Court was barred as the plaintiff had not obtained consent of the Charity Commissioner as required by section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Appellate Court accepted the contention which resulted in filing the writ petition before the High Court. In the writ petition, the High Court took the view that the trial Court was obliged to decide the issue of jurisdiction before deciding the application for interim relief application. The suit as presented being barred by jurisdiction, the issue ought to have been framed and decided at the very threshold and before deciding the interim relief application. The trial Court was thus directed to decide the issue expeditiously.

3. Somewhat similar view was taken earlier by a single Judge of this Court in the case of Shakuntala Balwant Gadgil vs. Shubhada Suhas Kulkarni, 1985 MhLJ. 77 = 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 231. While referring to section 9-A of the Code and the objection taken by the defendants in the suit that the suit was not maintainable, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit o