1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6173/2010 (Kawaljeet Indermohan Singh Sethi VERSUS Indermohan Suvindersingh Sethi) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.K. Choube, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.L. Bajaj, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 16 , 2011 . Heard. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Family Court No.2, Nagpur was not justified in directing that the Temporary Injunction application be heard while framing the preliminary issues and before the preliminary issues were decided, is liable to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 1240 (Tayyabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & another Versus Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., etc.). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where an objection to the jurisdiction of the civil Court is raised to entertain a suit and to pass any interim orders therein, the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance but, that does not mean that pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to add that a mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the Court from passing any interim order and it can yet pass appropriate 2 orders. The Court observed that at the same time, it should also decide the question of jurisdiction at the earliest possible time. This judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 294 (Ghanshyam Jamnomal Shewakramani & another Versus Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) & others) and it was held by this Court that mere raising a jurisdictional plea does not disable a Court from granting temporary injunction and if a party succeeds in a challenge to the jurisdiction, the temporary injunction would be vacated. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1240 (Tayyabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & another Versus Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., etc.), the judgment reported in 2009(2) BCR 622 (Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others Versus Bharat Shantilal Shah & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be helpful to the case of the petitioner. Though the Court did not committ any error in directing the hearing of the temporary injunction application, it would be necessary for the Family Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest possible moment, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 1240 (Tayyabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & another Versus Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., etc.). In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE