SM 1 17.ao.819.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 819 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO 1080 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 819 OF 2011 Ghatkopar Septic Tank Gurukrupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ....Appellants. Versus Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and another ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. V. A. Thorat with S. B. Pawal i/b S. K. Legal for the Appellants. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b Smt. Anjali R. Awasthe for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. Mr. P. G. Lad for the Respondent No. 9 and 10. Mr. D. A. Nalawade for the Respondent No. 12. Ms. K. K. Soraan for the Respondent No. 14-BMC. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2011. P.C.: This Appeal from Order can be disposed of by issuing directions to City Civil Court to frame and decide the issue of jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure and then take up the application for interim relief for consideration. In order to decide this Appeal from Order, it is not necessary to go into factual aspects of the matter. After presentation of the suit, the appellant/original defendant filed an Affidavit-in-Reply and raised preliminary objections as regards jurisdiction of Civil Court. The original defendant has contended that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in SM 2 17.ao.819.11 view of Section 42 of the Slum Act. The second objection is raised as regards the bar of jurisdiction under Section 177 of the MHADA Act to entertain suit. The defendant has also objected to entertainability of the suit on account of want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the fourth objection is raised to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on account of bar for granting reliefs as claimed for by the plaintiff in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The objections are raised in the Affidavit- in-Reply in quite detail. However, the Trial Court has not considered those objections. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, once an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised, it is the responsibility of the Court to take up the preliminary issue of jurisdiction for consideration and on consideration of the preliminary issue, the Court is supposed to take up the application for grant of interim relief for consideration. In the instant matter, the Trial Court has proceeded to decide the issue of grant of interim relief before taking up the matter in respect of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court as raised by the defendants for consideration. 2. In this view of the matter, I deem fit it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to frame an issue in respect of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit and decide the same before finally adjudicating the application for interim relief. The interim order passed by the Trial Court shall be construed as an ad-interim order passed under Section 9A (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Judge shall proceed to decide the objection to the jurisdiction of Court first and shall render the decision thereon as SM 3 17.ao.819.11 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, if reaches to a conclusion that the Civil Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the Court shall take up the application for grant of interim relief for consideration and shall decide the same after extending an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 3. In view of the directions, as above, the Appeal from Order stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, pending Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R. M. BORDE, J.)