The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of deciding the objection regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting interim relief under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the common order passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon on 5th September, 2015 below Exhibits-26 and 46 in Regular Civil Suit No. 260/2015. Both the aforesaid applications were filed by the present petitioner. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid civil suit seeking a declaration that the two orders both dated 6th August, 2015 passed by District Collector, Jalgaon (Respondent No.1) be declared null and void and consequently be quashed and set aside. Along with the civil suit, the petitioner had also filed an application seeking interim injunction by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code).

3. Respondent No.1 has filed his written say raising a preliminary objection as regards to the jurisdiction of the Court to try and entertain the suit so filed by the petitioner. According to Respondent No.1, the remedy available for the plaintiff was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and no suit was liable to be entertained in the form and manner it was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. A separate application was also filed by respondent No.1 on 2nd September, 2015 praying for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue as per the provisions of Section 9A of the CPC.

4. After filing of such application by respondent No.1, the petitioner filed her say to the said application and also filed an application under Section 9A(2) of CPC, praying for grant of stay to the effect, operation and implementation of two impugned orders dated 6th August, 2015 passed by defendant No.1 till decision on the point of jurisdiction. Prior to that, one more application was filed by the petitioner on 24th August, 2015, at Exh.26 seeking order of status quo till disposal of the application at Exhibit-6 filed by her seeking temporary injunction. The said application (Exhibit-26) and the application filed under Section 9A(2) (Exhibit-46) were commonly heard and decided by the Civil Court by a common order which is impugned in the present petition. The learned Civil Judge has rejected both these applications vide the impugned order.

5. Shri S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though a very just prayer was made by the petitioner that till the issue of jurisdiction is decided by the Court, implementation of the impugned orders be stayed or parties be directed to maintain status quo, the Civil Court has rejected the said prayer on erroneous grounds. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Trial Court instead of restricting the discussion to the limited request made by the petitioners seeking protection for a temporary period, till decision on the point of jurisdiction, did enter into the discussion on merits, as if it was deciding the application for interim relief. The learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the petitioner had sought stay to the effect, operation and implementation of two orders dated 6.8.2015; one directing the Superintendent of Land Records to demarcate the area allegedly encroached by the persons named in the subject letter and other, directing the Commissioner, Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, to remove the encroachment alleged to be made by the persons named in the said letter, which contains the name of the present petitioner also. The learned Counsel submitted that even on merits, the petitioner has a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in her favour. The learned counsel further submitted that irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner if the impugned orders are not stayed. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and further prayed for