1. This appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2016 passed by City Civil Court, Mumbai in Suit No. 8497 of 1995.

2. The brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:

The appellant herein has filed the instant suit for the relief of declaration and injunction. The declaration sought was in respect of the various shares of respondent-company which came to be lost in the process of transit. It is submitted that the appellant has purchased 2200 shares of respondent No.1 from their brokers M/s. Raj Chawla & Co., having their office at New Delhi, under the purchase bill No.7797 dated 20.01.1995. The said shares along with blank transfer forms duly signed by the transferor were dispatched by the brokers to the appellant at Mumbai on 23.01.1995 under the airway bill No.603032720, through courier service namely, M/s. Elbee Services Ltd. As per the case of the appellant, before the receipt of the delivery of the said shares with the duly signed transfer forms by the appellant, the same were lost in transit from the head office of Elbee Services Ltd., Mumbai. Accordingly M/s. Elbee Services Ltd. has also lodged complaint with the police on 31.01.1995 and intimated about the same to the appellant. The appellant by its letters dated 08.02.1995 and 28.02.1995 informed about the loss of the said shares to respondent No.1 company and respondent No.2 and requested them to issue duplicate share certificate after completing the requisite formalities. The appellant also requested them to stop the transfer of the said shares. As there was absolutely no response from respondent No.1 or respondent No.2, the appellant, through its Advocate, issued a further letter dated 23.03.1995 requesting them to refrain from transferring the said shares in favour of any third person, except the appellant. Respondent No.2 has taken the cognizance of the said letter and vide its reply dated 14.03.1995 called upon the appellant to obtain the necessary order to that effect from the competent Court. The appellant has, therefore, approached the Trial Court by filing the instant suit seeking the relief of declaration that the appellant is the absolute owner of these shares and for further direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue duplicate share certificates in favour of the appellant in respect of these shares. The consequential relief of injunction was also sought for.

3. Initially the suit was filed in this Court and this Court was pleased to pass the order of interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 from transferring the said shares in favour of any third person. Respondent Nos.3 to 28 are also joined subsequently in the suit as they were the transferors of the shares in question.

4. In view of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the suit came to be transferred to the Trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing the their written statement, denying all the allegations and averments and raising a very specific defence that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit as the subject matter of the suit can squarely fall within the inquiry and the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Companies in view of Section 84 of the of the Companies Act. The reliance was placed in the written statement itself on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Shripal Jain Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 590.

5. In addition to this contention that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, the various other contentions were also raised in the suit, like denying the appellant's claim of being absolute owner of the said shares, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and also on the ground of non joinder of necessary party, like the transferors of the shares being not joined in the suit.

6. The Trial Court framed necessary issues at Exhibit 4, on the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, including the issue r