spb/- 1 wp1736-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1736 OF 2011 1. Shri Madanlal Veerban Malhotra & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. 1. Shri Junaid Mohammad Arshad Merchant & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Suboad S. Sawant for the Petitioners. Mr. Jaisingh Rajput for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 This is a petition at the instance of original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration that the deed of convenience dated 30th December, 2004 executed by the defendants nos. 1 to 24 in favour of the defendants nos. 25 to 27 was illegal, invalid, inoperative and bad in law. In the suit, the plaintiffs made an application on 22nd April, 2009 for an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest or part with possession of the suit property in favour of any third party. On July 20, 2009 defendants nos. 1 to 26 made an application spb/- 2 wp1736-11.sxw under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for framing an issue as to the limitation and maintainability of the suit as preliminary issues before hearing the application for interim injunction. By an order dated 9th December, 2009, the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane (Trial Court) rejected the application. That order was challenged by the petitioners by filing a civil revision application no. 276 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioners sought leave to convert the civil revision application into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was granted by this court by its order dated 14th February, 2011. No stay to the impugned order was granted by the court in the civil revision application and therefore, the trial court proceeded with the application for hearing of interim injunction and by an order dated 01st January, 2010 has disposed of the application for injunction. In view of these facts the short question that arises for my consideration is whether the petition survives in view of the fact that application for interim injunction has since been decided. 2 Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) as applicable in the State of Maharashtra, provides that if at the hearing of any application for granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise made in any suit, an spb/- 3 wp1736-11.sxw objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such a suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Section 9A therefore, requires the court to decide an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court if raised by any of the parties to the suit or before the hearing of an application for interim injunction. Since the application for interim injunction has been decided on 6th January, 2010 in the absence of any interim relief in the revision application or in the writ petition, the application under section 9A has become infructuous. This is because an application for interim injunction has already been decided and therefore, section 9A of the Code has no application. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Professor H.C. Patel vs. Kaushik Desai, 2005 (4) ALL MR 961 submitted that an application under section 9-A can still be decided even after application for interim injunction is decided. I am unable to agree. In the case of Professor H.C. Patel (Supra) an application under section 9A of the Code was made to determine an issue as to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that spb/- 4 wp1736-11.sxw the court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the provisions contained in the Society Registration Act and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, particularly in view of Sections 50,51 and 81 thereof. It was contended that since the application for interim relief was disposed of, the court ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain the matter under section 9A of the Code. This court held that as Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code empowers the court to dispose off the suit on a preliminary issue at any stage of the proceeding, the court was competent to decide the issue regarding jurisdiction even at the preliminary stage. There can be no doubt to the proposition that the court is empowered to frame a preliminary issue and decide it in view of section 14 (2) of the Code. The court can dispose of the whole suit if it holds that it does not have jurisdiction. Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code is an enabling provision which enables the court to decide an issue as to jurisdiction as preliminary issue as distinguished from the provisions of Section 9A of the Code which mandates the court to decide the issue as a preliminary issue. In case of application under section 9A, the court has no option but to decide the issue as a preliminary issue before hearing the application for interim relief. However, it is not mandatory so to do under Order 14 sub- rule 2, that the court may try and decide the issue as preliminary issue. The court generally exercises the power under Order 14 (2) where no spb/- 5 wp1736-11.sxw evidence is required to be adduced for the decision of a preliminary issue. However, if evidence is required to be adduced for determination of the issue as to its jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the court ordinarily does not exercise the discretionary power under Order 14 Rule 2; because evidence would be required to be recorded twice if the court comes to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, whether evidence would be required to be adduced, for the purpose of determination of the preliminary issue is a question which depends on facts of each case. It would be open to the plaintiffs/petitioners to make application under Order 14 Rule 2, if they so desire, after the issues are framed. If such an application is made, the court shall decide the application on its own merit. Suffice it to say that at this stage, the petition has become infructuous as the application for interim injunction had been decided. 4 Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]