SM 1 17.ao.1037.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1037 OF 2011 M/s. Nandkripa Builders ....Appellants. Versus Mohammad Yusuf Kamruddin Varekar and Others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Vineet Naik a/w Adv. Deepa Ahuja a/w Nayna Rane i/b Kartikeya & Associates for the Appellants. Mr. P. M. Pradhan i/b Sanjay for the Respondent No. 1 to 4. Mr. P. S. Dani i/b Trupti Sarvankar for the Respondent Nos. 5 for 15. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2011. P.C.: The appellant is taking exception to the order passed by the Joint Judge, City Civil Court, Thane on 12th July, 2011 below Exhibit-5 in S. C. No. 655 of 2010. The learned Judge of the Trial Court while passing the order on interim application at Exhibit-5 has restrained the defendant no. 5/appellant from selling, transferring etc. the suit property to third person. It is the contention of the appellant that the issues raised in the suit are falling within exclusive jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities and there is a bar in respect of consideration of the issues raised in the suit by the Civil Court. An objection has been, specifically, raised in the Written Statement contending therein that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised in the suit. It is stated in the paragraph no. 10 of the Written Statement, which is quoted as below: SM 2 17.ao.1037.11 “It is submitted that the crux of this matter is that the plaintiffs are tying to challenge the title of this Defendant, based on the various orders and proceedings of the revenue authorities. Basically the Plaintiffs are denying the rights of this Defendant, being the agricultural tenants of the suit properties and ultimately contend that this Defendant have no right to purchase the lands under the provision of B.T. & A.L. Act. Therefore, deciding the matter of rights of purchasing the said properties under B.T. & A. L. Act does not come within the purview of this Hon’ble Court; and therefore, this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matters pertaining to the title, which necessarily is required to be decided by the ALT or any other competent authority from the revenue department. Therefore, in the humble submission of this Defendant, this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any try the said issue and therefore, to try this suit. On this count itself, the suit of the Plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed.” 2. Considering the issues raised in the suit there appears to be bar for entertaining suit by Civil Court. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to direct the Trial Court to frame issues as regards the jurisdiction of Civil court by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cannot be controverted that before rendering any decision on interim relief application, the Trial Court is obliged to frame issue regarding jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised, it is incumbent upon the Court to scrutinize the objection relating to jurisdiction of the Court and record the finding thereon before proceeding to decide the application seeking interim relief. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it needs to be directed to the Trial Court to decide the SM 3 17.ao.1037.11 preliminary issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit and decide the same as preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court shall be treated as ad-interim order passed under Section 9A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court shall proceed to take up the application seeking interim relief after rendering the decision on the preliminary issue relating the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and pass an appropriate order. 3. Appeal from Order is disposed of. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order pending Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4. The Trial Court is directed to proceed to decide the issue of jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within 12 weeks from today. (R. M. BORDE, J.)