1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2009 Bhedasgaon Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. Prashant Mahaling Majgaonkar & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Amit Borkar for the Applicants. Shri Umesh Mankapure for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 08, 2010 P.C: 1. Both the learned counsel agree that the learned Judge has not decided the objection to the jurisdiction raised by the applicants. If that be so, it would follow that the learned trial Judge should not have proceeded to grant injunction before deciding the question of jurisdiction which was raised before him. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the order of injunction has not been challenged. What has been challenged in this petition is the failure of the learned 2 trial Judge to decide the jurisdictional issue. Without deciding the jurisdictional question in the face of the provision of Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge could not have proceeded to decide and grant injunction and, therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction that order must go. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The learned trial Judge shall first decide the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit and then consider whether he should grant injunction. The learned trial Judge would hear the parties and decide this question within a period of one month. Till then, the parties to maintain status quo. Needless to say, there are no observations made by this Court on the question of grant of injunction. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)