1 wp no. 6741.03 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6741 OF 2003 Machindra Laxman Mhatre and Others ... Petitioner Versus Jalindarnath Laxman Mhatre and Others .. Respondents Mr. Sandesh Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, A.G.P. for respondents nos. 2 and 3. Mr. S.W. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no. 1. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : OCTOBER 25, 2010 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 28.8.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane at Exh. 37 and 38 filed by the petitioners (original defendant nos. 3 to 7). Respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff. By the application at Exh. 37 the petitioners sought framing of issue of limitation as preliminary issue under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure and for decision thereon. Application at Exh. 38 was for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the 2 wp no. 6741.03 Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the time being petitioners do not press for the petition to the extent of the order on the application at Exh. 38 and that he would raise the objection thereunder at the time of trial of the suit. The petitioners are limiting themselves to the order on the application at Exh. 37. 2. The trial Court had dismissed the application at Exh. 37 on the ground that the issue of limitation can not be framed as preliminary issue under section 9A of C.P.C. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in (1) Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 622 and (2) Freeshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited Versus Praveen D. Desai and Ors. reported in 2009 (1) Bom.C.R. 757 submits that the plea of limitation is now treated as a plea of law concerned with the jurisdiction of the court and therefore, the same can be raised under section 9A of C.P.C. In view of the above 3 wp no. 6741.03 direct decisions, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.8.2003 is set aside relating only to application at Exh. 37. The application at Exh. 37 is allowed. The trial court is directed to frame the issue of limitation as preliminary issue under section 9A of C.P.C. and decide the same at the earliest. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)