1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.95 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2009 Surendra Chauhan : Appellant versus Jagdishkumar Vedprakash Agarwal & ors. : Respondents. Shri K P Tiwari i/by M/s. K P Tiwari & Co. for the Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Singh i/by S Patankar for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2009 P.C. 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant, who is the original Defendant No.1 in L C Suit No.5138 of 2003, challenges the order dated 6th October 2008, passed by the learned Judge, , City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai, by which order the Notice of Motion filed by the Defendant No.1 for framing a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Court by invoking Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure 2 has been rejected. 2. The grounds for rejection of the said Notice of Motion are mentioned in para 9 of the impugned order. The learned Judge has observed that the Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement but has not raised, a preliminary objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the Issues are already settled and the Affidavit and Additional Affidavit of Evidence is already filed; list of documents are produced and the matter has proceeded further for recording of evidence and cross examination of the Plaintiffs. The Learned Judge in the said conspectus of facts rejected the said Notice of Motion on the ground that Section 9A could not be invoked in the said circumstances. 3. In my view, no fault could be found with the impugned order, having regard to the provisions of Section 9A of the CPC. However it would be open to the Defendant No.1 to file an Application for framing an additional Issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Court 3 and if such an Application is filed, the trial Court to consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.115 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]