1 RA St. 24478.2011 in WP 1253.2009 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 24478 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1253 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :30/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Bhawar, the learned counsel for the review applicant/petitioner, Mr. Shahane, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 27 and Mr. S.S. Jadhav, the learned counsel for respondent no.31. 2. Mr. Bhawar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition on the premise that the application was only U/s 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘the Code ’ ] and the provisions of Order XIV of the Code were not considered. The learned counsel relies on the observations made by this Court in para no. 3 in the Order dated 21/06/2011. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satpuda Tapi Parisar 2 RA St. 24478.2011 in WP 1253.2009 Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. V/s Jagruti Industries and another reported in 2008 ( 4 ) Mh.L.J. - 471 and contends that the application for framing issue of jurisdiction can be given at any stage, even if the stage as contemplated U/s 9-A of the Code is over. 3. Mr. Shahane, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the present respondent nos. 1 to 27, who are the plaintiffs before the Co-operative Court, have already led evidence and the matter is fixed for the evidence of present review applicant. There is no error apparent on the face of record. 4. The scope of review U/s 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code is in a narrow compass. The same is not akin to the appellate jurisdiction. 5. The application was made by the present applicant after the hearing on Exh. 5 was concluded and the order was passed. The scheme of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code envisages that the Court shall give decision on all the issues. However, an exception is carved out to decide the particular issue as a preliminary issue. The discretion vests with the Court either to try the said issue as a preliminary issue or along with all the issues. The issue of jurisdiction in the present case is a mixed question of law and fact. The evidence is required to be led to determine the said issue. In such circumstances, no illegality is committed in ordering 3 RA St. 24478.2011 in WP 1253.2009 the said issue to be decided along with all other issues. More over, now the evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses is already concluded and as such is for the evidence of the defendant i.e. the present review applicant. In such circumstances, it is desirable that the decision is given on all the issues. The Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case on Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [ supra ] is with regard to the decision on a reference being made as to a conflict between Section 9-A and Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code. The Division Bench in that context observed that there is no conflict between both the provisions and Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code is attracted at any stage of the Suit and Section 9-A of the Code operates at a particular stage. 6. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, the review application being sans merits, as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/RA St. 24478.2011 in WP 1253.2009 4 RA St. 24478.2011 in WP 1253.2009