The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of granting interim relief under Section 9A (2) of the CPC, emphasizing the need for renewal of the request for interim relief upon changed circumstances and the requirement for showing a glaring fact causing irretrievable loss to the plaintiff for granting such relief.

1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for the appointment of Court Receiver and the usual injunctions as also for directing the defendants to deposit the amounts collected and received by them in respect of the suit property with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon in a suit for declaration challenging the sale and transfer of the suit property by defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 & 3 as invalid and for the consequential relief of injunction in respect of its alienation, further sale and creation of third party rights.

2. The suit property is the subject matter of a Testamentary Petition being the estate of one Vensimal Kalachand Harjani under whose will defendant No.1 purported to sell the suit property. The petition for probate is stated to have been filed by defendant No.1, 42 years after his death. The plaintiff sought the relief of injunction against further alienation in the testamentary suit. The relief came to be refused under the order dated 05.01.2011 of this Court in its T & I jurisdiction upon the ground that the property was sold in the year 2010. The plaintiff thereafter filed this suit for the grant of the injunction upon the same facts on 14.08.2013. The plaintiff applied for what was called “urgent ad interim reliefs” on 23.10.2013 in the aforesaid Notice of Motion taken out on 17.10.2013.

3. This Court by its order dated 23.10.2013 refused ad interim relief. The Court recorded that the same reliefs were sought from the Testamentary Court and which were rejected on the ground that the property had been sold in the year 2010 and that the Notice of Motion was not maintainable before the Testamentary Court. This Court further recorded that except for stating that the plaintiff is a 66 years old lady and was unwell, no reason as to why this Court was not approached in the last more than 2 ½ years is given. The Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any urgent ad interim relief without giving an opportunity to the defendants to file their affidavit-in-reply. The defendants were directed to file their affidavit-in-reply. The Notice of Motion was adjourned.

4. The Defendants have filed their affidavit-in-reply. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 have taken up the issue of limitation. The issue has to be tried as the jurisdictional issue under Section 9A of the CPC. The issue has been framed and directions for filing the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff has been passed on 04.04.2014 by this Court. The suit came to be adjourned for considering the admissibility of the documents of the plaintiff. Admissibility of the documents has been considered. The affidavit of evidence of the plaintiff has been accepted on record. The Commissioner has been appointed to record the cross-examination of the parties.

5. The plaintiff presses for interim relief under Section 9A (2) of the CPC. Section 9A (2) runs thus:

“9A (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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. Maharashtra Act (65 of 1977) (w.e.f. 19.12.1977).

6. The application taken out by the plaintiff by way of the above Notice of Motion is itself for interim relief in the suit. The plaintiff applied for what is popularly known on the original side of the Bombay High Court as ad interim reliefs. These are the reliefs of an urgent nature granted pending the disposal of the Notice of Motion which is an application for interim reliefs. The preliminary issue has to be decided pending such Notice of Motion which is the application for interim reliefs. Section 9A came to be enacted specifically so that the application for interim relief, which takes up a lot of judicial time, would not be considered until the Court satisfies itself that it has the jurisdiction to decide the suit. This would include the Court's jurisdiction if the suit is not barred by the