UTTAMCHAND MANNALAL LAKHANI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR PREMRATAN MUNDADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) The present civil revision application is filed against the order of the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 72 of 1996, whereby the application under Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code is kept open for consideration and is not decided. In the present civil revision application, the applicant/plaintiff seeks direction to the Trial Court to decide the application under Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code, even before passing any order on the injunction application.

(3.) The facts are that after the plaintiff filed the suit along with an application for grant of temporary injunction and after he got an ad- interim relief in his favour, the defendant filed his reply to the suit. In the reply the defendant took objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. When the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 came up for hearing, the applicant-plaintiff himself filed the application under Section 9-A insisting upon therein that the preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction be framed and it be decided as a preliminary issue. The learned Counsel for the defendant claimed that he was not objecting to the same at that stage, but insisted upon the expeditious decision on the injunction application. The Trial Court has taken a view that sub-section (2) of Section 9-A of CPC permits granting of interim relief even without determining by it the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction. The Trial Court relied upon the ruling from the case of Igtius D Cunha v. Father Devis,1993 MhLJ 1441 and held that application Ex. 29 need not be decided, at that stage it was kept open for consideration till the decision of the suit. The plaintiff has challenged this order in the present civil revision application.