1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2019 OF 2010 Mr. Noorul Hasan Mohd Idreis Khan & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs M/s. Manav Builders & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri A.V. Anturkar i/by Anjali R. Awasthi for the Petitioners. Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni i/by Shri S.K. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri M.M. Malvankar for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners - original Plaintiffs have taken an exception to an order passed by the Trial Court by which a preliminary issue of jurisdiction has been framed. The preliminary issue is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the Petitioner in view of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. 2 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the Trial Court has not yet framed the issues, therefore, there is no occasion for the Trial Court to try the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. His submission is that only after the Trial Court frames the issues including the issue of jurisdiction that the prayer for trying an issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue will have to be considered. He submits that the stage under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Cod ) is already over and, therefore, now at this stage the issue of jurisdiction cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. In view of Sub- rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the said Code, the submission will have to be rejected. The Rule 2 reads thus:- “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the 3 settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.” 5. It is not in dispute that the Written Statement has been filed and issue of jurisdiction has been raised in the Written Statement. Sub- rule (2) is crystal clear. Before trying the issue of jurisdiction or the issue of bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, there is no requirement of framing all the issues arising in the suit. In fact, the Sub- rule (2) provides that when the Court finds that a suit can be disposed of on the issue of law only then the Court may first try the issue of jurisdiction or the issue of bar created by the Statute and to enable the Court to do so, the settlement of the other issues can be postponed until the preliminary issue has been determined. The power exercised in the present case by the Trial Court is under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the said Code. Hence, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties on the issue of jurisdiction are kept open. 6. The disposal of the preliminary issue will be done expeditiously. (A.S.OKA, J)