: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2009 BEST Undertaking ... Applicant V/s. Mohanlal G. Kukreja & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.A.B. Ketkar with Kavita Anchan for Applicants Mr.P.N. Ganwani for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed against the order passed by the city civil court on 27.4.2009 rejecting the application filed at exhibit 89. The applicant herein had filed that application for framing an additional issue as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the disputes covered under the Indian Electricity Act 1910. The trial Court has held that since the defendant had not raised this issue in its written statement, the issue is not being framed. 2. The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the suit has been pending since 1992. Evidence of the parties has been completed and the defendants have raised the issue with respect to the jurisdiction at the fag end of the trial which cannot be permitted. He submits that the contention of the defendants : 2 : that the electricity inspector would have the power to adjudicate the dispute would mean that he would arbitrate the dispute raised by the plaintiff. He submits that such an issue regarding jurisdiction ought to have bee raised at the first instance as is required under the Arbitration Act, 1940 as well as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He therefore submits that framing this additional issue would only prolong the litigation. 3. In my view, the trial Court has committed no grave error by not framing the additional issue. Whether that issue should be decided in favour of the defendant or not is a question which the Court could decide later. But when the issue of jurisdiction is raised it is necessary for the Courts to frame an issue. It is true that parties should raise the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest possible instance. However, since it is trite that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on an authority even by consent of the parties, the question of inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. 4. In my opinion, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application at exhibit 89 is set aside. 5. The trial Court shall frame the additional issue “whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the disputes covered by the prayers which are falling under Schedule VI of Indian Electricity Act, 1910?” 6. Civil revision application is disposed of. The suit shall be decided as expeditiously as possible an in any event by 31.12.2010.