1 cra565-11.sxw jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION AAPPLICATION NO. 565 OF 2011 Nikhil Machines Pvt. Ltd. and another .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Yashodhan Chandalal i/by Sarida K. Unny, for the petitioners Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Mr. G. B. Kedia, for respondent No.5 CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 16th August, 2011 P. C. 1. After having heard the arguments advanced by the respective counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that issuing directions to the trial Court to deal with the objection tendered by the defendant relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the suit, expeditiously would suffice the ends of the defendant. 2. The applicant is a original plaintiff who has presented the suit claiming certain reliefs. Along with the 2 cra565-11.sxw plant the applicant also tendered an application seeking interim relief. The objection raised by the defendant relates to want of jurisdiction of the trial Court to deal with the suit, in view of the provisions of Section 9(A) of the Civil Procedure Code. It would be proper to direct the parties to address the issue of jurisdiction before the trial Court and the trial Court shall proceed to determine the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest and thereafter shall take up the application presented by the plaintiff/petitioner for grant of interim relief. 3. Without entering into the merits of the controversy involved in the matter, the trial Court is directed to hear and decide the objection raised by the defendant in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from today. 4. The parties are directed to cause appearance before the trial Court on 22nd August, 2011 and in view of the undertakings given by the parties that they would cause appearance before the trial Court on the given date, separate notice informing date prescribed in the matter shall not be necessary. 3 cra565-11.sxw 5. The trial Court shall consider the objection in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit first and thereafter proceed to decide the application tendered by the plaintiff for grant of interim relief, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the directions stated above, the revision application is disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.)