1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 199 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 199 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 199 OF 2006 Assent Construction & Contractors Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus M/s. Shah Nagindas Mancharam & Sons & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni, Advocate, a/w Mr. A.M.Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Dipti Ngareth, Advocate, i/b. M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associats, Advocates, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th January, 2008. DATE: 8th January, 2008. DATE: 8th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the defendants-appellants challenging the order of attachment before judgment pending the suit. According 2 to the defendants, they had made an application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the jurisdiction with a request to the Court to consider the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, but in view of an authority of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the trial Court did not decide that issue. 2. Recently, in Civil Revision Application No.54 of 2006 (Madhuri P. Patole vs. Aruna S. Gaikwad), the Division Bench of this Court by the Judgment dated 29.11.2007, has clearly held that inspite of the Central Amendment in the Civil Procedure Code, Section 9A introduced in the Civil Procedure Code by Maharashtra Amendment remains intact and, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction may be determined as a preliminary issue. In view of this development, with consent of the parties, this Appeal is disposed of with the following directions :- (i) The trial Court shall hear the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in view of the Application made under Section 9A by the defendants. In case, the trial Court finds that it had no jurisdiction, it may pass appropriate order to dismiss the suit or to return the plaint. However, in case the trial Court finds 3 that it has jurisdiction, the defendant-appellant shall have liberty to prefer appeal against the order of attachment before judgment dated 7.1.2006 again as while disposing of this Appeal, the parties are not heard on merits in that respect. (ii) Pending the decision on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the said order dated 7.1.2006 shall continue to be in force as interim order. Appeal stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)