Bombay High Court Allows Appeal by Administrator in Suit for Declaration of Void Lease and Possession, Setting Aside Single Judge's Order Dismissing Interim Relief on Limitation Ground. Court holds that Section 9A CPC requires preliminary issue on jurisdiction to be decided before hearing interim relief, but if court decides to hear interim relief, it must consider merits and not dismiss on limitation alone.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two appeals arising from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 19 July 2010, on a Notice of Motion for interim relief in a suit. The suit was filed by Nusli Neville Wadia, as administrator of the estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw, against Ferani Hotels Private Limited and others, seeking a declaration that a lease deed executed by the administrator in favor of Ferani was void and for possession of the property. When the application for ad interim relief came up for hearing, the First Defendant (Ferani) raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The Learned Single Judge accepted the contention that a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) must be raised. However, the court held that no case for the grant of ad interim relief under Section 9A(2) was made out on the ground of delay. The Learned Single Judge then proceeded to dispose of the entire Notice of Motion for interim relief, stating that since affidavits had been filed and parties were heard at length, it would not be appropriate to have a hearing confined only to ad interim relief. The court dismissed the motion without deciding it on merits. Two appeals were filed: one by the Plaintiff (administrator) and one by the First Defendant (Ferani). The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and R.D. Dhanuka, JJ., heard the appeals. The court held that the Learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Notice of Motion without deciding it on merits. The court observed that once the judge decided to hear the motion for interim relief, it was incumbent to decide it on merits. The refusal of ad interim relief solely on the ground of delay was not justified. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the Notice of Motion on merits. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Section 9A CPC - Preliminary Issue on Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Suit - Limitation - The court held that when an objection to maintainability on the ground of limitation is raised, a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC must be framed and decided before proceeding further. However, if the court decides to hear the interim relief application, it must decide it on merits and not dismiss it solely on the ground of delay or limitation without considering the merits. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Ad Interim Relief - Refusal on Ground of Delay - The court held that the Learned Single Judge erred in refusing ad interim relief under Section 9A(2) CPC solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case. The court must consider the balance of convenience and prima facie case before refusing interim relief. (Paras 11-20)

C) Civil Procedure - Disposal of Motion for Interim Relief - Hearing on Merits - The court held that once the Learned Single Judge decided to hear the Notice of Motion for interim relief after affidavits and lengthy arguments, it was incumbent upon the court to decide the motion on merits and not dismiss it on the ground that no case for ad interim relief was made out due to delay. The order dismissing the motion without deciding merits is unsustainable. (Paras 21-30)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Notice of Motion for interim relief without deciding it on merits, after holding that a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC must be raised, and whether the court could refuse ad interim relief on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Division Bench allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge dated 19 July 2010, and remanded the matter back to the Learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the Notice of Motion for interim relief on merits. The court directed that the Notice of Motion be decided afresh in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Section 9A CPC
  • preliminary issue on jurisdiction
  • maintainability of suit
  • limitation
  • interim relief
  • ad interim relief
  • disposal of motion for interim relief
  • hearing on merits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 69

Appeal No.817 of 2010 in Notice of Motion No.1863 of 2008 in Suit No.1628 of 2008 and Appeal No.806 of 2010 in Notice of Motion No.1863 of 2008 in Suit No.1628 of 2008

2012-07-19

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, R.D. Dhanuka

Mr. Abhishek Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Ms. Kanika Sharma, Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Mike Desai, Mr. Kunal Bahri and Mr. Rook Ray i/b M/s. Bharucha & Partners for the Appellant in Appeal 817 of 2010 and for Respondent No.1 in Appeal 806 of 2010; Mr. F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, Mr. R.M. Kadam, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohan Kelkar, Mr. Shrikant Doijode and Ms. Falguni Thakkar i/b Doijode Associates for Respondent No.1 in Appeal 817 of 2010 and for the Appellant in Appeal 806 of 2010; Mr. Vineet B. Naik i/b Mahimtura & Co. for Respondent No.3 in both the Appeals; Ms. Kashmira Bharucha i/b Mr. K.D. Abhichandani for Respondents 5 and 6; Mr. Simil Purohit with Mr. Rahul Totala and Mr. Hiren G. Shah i/b Prakash & Co. for Respondents 8,9,11,14,15, 17, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 34 to 37 and 49; Mr. N.K. Mudnaney for Respondents 10,13, 19 to 24 and 31; Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Vaidya i/b A.R. Vaidya & Co. for Respondents 12, 16, 25, 26, 27, 38 to 48; Mr. Ameya Malkan i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondents 32 and 33.

Ferani Hotels Private Limited (in Appeal 817/2010) and Nusli Neville Wadia (in Appeal 806/2010)

Nusli Neville Wadia and others (in Appeal 817/2010) and Ferani Hotels Private Limited and others (in Appeal 806/2010)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit seeking declaration that a lease deed is void and for possession of property, with interim relief application.

Remedy Sought

The Plaintiff (administrator) sought a declaration that the lease deed executed in favor of Ferani Hotels Private Limited is void and for possession of the property, along with interim relief.

Filing Reason

The administrator alleged that the lease deed was void and sought possession of the property from Ferani Hotels Private Limited.

Previous Decisions

The Learned Single Judge held that a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC must be raised on the objection of limitation, but refused ad interim relief on the ground of delay and dismissed the Notice of Motion for interim relief without deciding it on merits.

Issues

Whether the Learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Notice of Motion for interim relief without deciding it on merits after holding that a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC must be raised? Whether the court could refuse ad interim relief under Section 9A(2) CPC solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case?

Submissions/Arguments

The administrator argued that the Learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Notice of Motion without deciding it on merits, and that the refusal of ad interim relief on the ground of delay was not justified. Ferani Hotels Private Limited argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that the Learned Single Judge correctly raised a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC.

Ratio Decidendi

When an objection to maintainability on the ground of limitation is raised, a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC must be framed and decided. However, if the court decides to hear the interim relief application, it must decide it on merits and cannot dismiss it solely on the ground of delay or limitation without considering the merits. The refusal of ad interim relief under Section 9A(2) must be based on a consideration of the balance of convenience and prima facie case, not merely on delay.

Judgment Excerpts

The Learned Single Judge was requested to raise a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that no case for the grant of ad interim relief, within the meaning of Section 9A(2) was made out on the ground of delay. The Learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the Motion for interim relief on the ground that since affidavits have been filed and parties were heard at length, it would not be appropriate or proper to have a hearing confined only to the disposal of the application for ad interim relief.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2008. The Plaintiff filed Notice of Motion No.1863 of 2008 for interim relief. The First Defendant raised an objection to maintainability on limitation. The Learned Single Judge, on 19 July 2010, held that a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC must be raised, refused ad interim relief on delay, and dismissed the Notice of Motion without deciding merits. Two appeals were filed: Appeal No.817/2010 by Ferani Hotels Private Limited and Appeal No.806/2010 by Nusli Neville Wadia. The Division Bench heard the appeals and delivered judgment on 19 July 2012, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9A, Section 9A(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal by Administrator in Suit for Declaration of Void Lease and Possession, Setting Aside Single Judge's Order Dismissing Interim Relief on Limitation Ground. Court holds that Section 9A CPC requires preliminary issue on ju...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice in Income Tax Case Due to Change of Opinion. Reopening of Assessment Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Based on Mere Change of Opinion Without New Material is Invalid.