* 1 * CRA-55/2006 24.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2006 Central Warehousing Corporation, Pune .......Applicant V/S. Bhandari Industries Ltd and anr. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mrs. S.I. Shah i/by. M/s. S.I. Shah & Co. Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.S. Patil h/f. Mr. G.S. Godbole, Advocate for the respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 24 September, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Revision Application arises out of the order dated 3rd February, 2005 passed by the Vth Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune on the application at Exhibit-286 filed by the revision applicant. By that application, the revision applicant who is original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 244 of 2001 sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. * 2 * CRA-55/2006 24.9.2010 2. It was the contention of the revision applicant that in the earlier suit filed by the respondent being Special Civil Suit No. 659 of 1998, the respondents had reserved their right to file suit for damages/compensation. However, they had not obtained leave of the court under Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code for omitting sue for compensation. Therefore, the second suit filed in the year 2001 is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The other contention taken up by the revision applicants was that earlier suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 659 of 1998 was compromised by the parties by filing a joint purshis in which the respondents have withdrawn all their allegations and contentions against the revision applicants. Therefore, the suit filed for damages/compensation is not maintainable. 3. The suit is admittedly ready for trial. Issues arising in the suit for consideration of the court are already framed. The second contention of the revision applicant forms part of Issue no.6 framed. Therefore, the learned trial judge by the impugned order directed that the objections be heard at the time of trial. 4. Ms. S.I. Shah, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits * 3 * CRA-55/2006 24.9.2010 that the learned trial judge ought to have framed preliminary issue under Section 9A Civil Procedure Code on the objection taken and decided it instead of postponing the decision to final hearing. Bare reading of Section 9A Civil Procedure Code (Maharashtra Amendment) makes it clear that it can be resorted to only for an objection of jurisdiction of the court and not to an objection to the maintainability of the suit. The objection under Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code relates to the frame of the suit and not jurisdiction of the court. As such it is not covered by Section 9A Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the trial court has rightly postponed consideration of maintainability of the suit to the final hearing after recording of evidence. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Application. 5. Another aspect of the matter is that this Civil Revision Application itself is not maintainable. The order impugned in the Revision Application merely postpones the hearing of the issue to the main trial. It does not decide the issue. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]