1 AO-256-257-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO 256 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 341 OF 2010 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 257 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2010 A.O. NO. 256 OF 2010 Mr. Ranjit Shankar Yadav & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Mr. Suraj Gangadhar Yadav & Ors. ... Respondents A.O. NO. 257 OF 2010 Mr. Ranjit Shankar Yadav & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Mr. Vijay Shankar Yadav & Ors. .. Respondents S/Shri Sagar Ghogare i/b. sandip J.Ghogare, Advocates, for the appellants. Shri K.A.Chotani, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Ms. R.C.Nichani, Advocate for respndent No.5. Ms. Sarina S. Bangera i/b. Shri Anil R.Mishra, Advocates, for respondent No.6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 13th September, 2010. P.C. 1. The Appeals are filed by the original defendants in S.C.Suit No. 2185/2004 & 5651/2004. The suits were filed by the plaintiffs not only for 2 AO-256-257-10.sxw declaration of their right to conduct the business but also for possession of the suit premises which are said to be situated in the slum area. The plaintiffs also took out Notice of Motion No. 2493/2004 & N/M No.4954/2004 and prayed for interim reliefs in respect of the suit property. In reply to the said Notices of Motion, the defendants, while denying the claim of the plaintiffs, contended that as the property is situated in the slum area, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of the Slum Rehabilitation act. Besides that, it was also contended that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. After hearing the parties, the trial Court granted interim relief on the Notices of Motion. The said order is challenged n the present Appeals. 2. From the reply filed by the defendants/appellants, it is clear that besides their contentions on the facts of the case, they had specifically pleaded that the City Civil Court does not have jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Slum Rehabilitation Act as the property is situated in the slum area. A prayer was also made by the defendants that in view of Sec.9A of C.P.C., the issue of jurisdiction be raised as a preliminary issue and be decided before the interim relief is granted. Inspite of this, the trial Court neither raised the preliminary issue about the jurisdiction nor dealt with this question in the impugned order. Nowhere 3 AO-256-257-10.sxw in the impugned order, it is mentioned that this issue was not pressed by the defendants at the time of hearing. The learned Counsel for the defendants/appellants also makes a statement that the issue of jurisdiction has not been framed and has not been decided by the trial Court so far. Section 9A of C.P.C. as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, makes it clear that where at the hearing of any application relating to the interim relief in any suit, an objection of jurisdiction is taken, such issue shall be raised and decided as a preliminary issue, though as per sub-section (2) pending the hearing of such an application and the preliminary issue. This is a mandatory provision and in view of the specific plea taken by the defendants, it was necessary for the trial Court to raise the preliminary issue about jurisdiction. As the trial Court has neither raised that issue nor decided it, it is not clear whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to grant the Notice of Motion. 3. In view of the above circumstances, the Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside and the Notices of Motion are remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to frame preliminary issue about jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 9A of C.P.C. and to decide the said preliminary issue before deciding the Notices of Motion on merits. However, the trial Court shall be at liberty to pass the order of ad-interim relief if it deems necessary as per 4 AO-256-257-10.sxw the powers under sub-section (2) of Sec.9A of C.P.C. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and decide the question of jurisdiction and then,if need be, the Notices of Motion within next three months. 4. As the Appeals are disposed of, the Civil Applications do not survive and they stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)