MUKUND LTD Vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent is the plaintiff in a suit instituted against (i) the appellant; (ii) the Airports Authority of India (the second respondent); and (iii) the State of Maharashtra (the Third Respondent). The first respondent seeks a declaration that the second respondent is the owner of certain land and that it has been leased out to the first respondent under a lease of 26 April, 2006; that an order dated 22 June, 1973 and an agreement dated 22 January, 1991 executed between the appellant and the State of Maharashtra are null and void; and an injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the land.

(2.) An interlocutory motion was taken out by the first respondent for seeking an injunction against the appellant and the State of Maharashtra from acting upon their agreement and for restraining the appellant from alienating the land. On behalf of the appellant an affidavit was filed in reply to the motion inter alia contending that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that "the suit and the prayers are barred by the law of limitation". A similar objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit in an affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. The bar of limitation was thus raised in both the affidavits.

(3.) On 4 March, 2010, a Learned Single Judge of this Court issued an ad interim direction to the effect that the statement that was recorded in a letter dated 25 February, 2010 would continue until 22 March, 2010. On 18 March, 2010, the ad interim protection was continued pending the disposal of the motion. On 16 June, 2010, a statement was made on behalf of the State of Maharashtra by Counsel that for the purpose of the Notice of Motion, the State was not pressing the issue that the suit is beyond limitation. The same statement was made on behalf of the appellant. When the motion came up before the Learned Single Judge, the Court considered it appropriate to decide upon the legal position as to whether a Defendant can be permitted to give up its stand with regard to the question of jurisdiction of the Court at the hearing of the motion or whether, in view of the provisions of section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, a preliminary issue would have to be framed.