Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by Madhuri Prabhakar Patole against Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad, challenging an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune dated 5th December 2005. The trial court had rejected a preliminary issue raised by the applicant regarding the court's jurisdiction to try the suit, deciding it under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). During the pendency of the revision, the Bombay High Court in an unreported decision dated 14th March 2006 in Writ Petition No.10602 of 2004 (Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sou.Nigam A.Manna Beskar & Ors.) held that Section 9A of the CPC, as applicable to Maharashtra, stands repealed by Section 32 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 16 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002. The learned Single Judge found that Section 9A is a departure from the normal procedure for determining jurisdiction and thus cannot survive after the amendments. Consequently, the trial court's order deciding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9A was unsustainable. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to decide the issue of jurisdiction along with other issues at the final stage of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Repeal of Section 9A CPC - Section 9A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether Section 9A, which allowed preliminary determination of jurisdiction, stood repealed by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. Relying on an unreported decision in Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sou.Nigam A.Manna Beskar & Ors., the court held that Section 9A is a departure from normal procedure and stands repealed, thus the trial court's order deciding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9A was unsustainable. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to Maharashtra, stands repealed by the CPC (Amendment) Acts of 1999 and 2002, and consequently whether the trial court could decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under that provision.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th December 2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the issue of jurisdiction along with other issues at the final stage of the suit.
Law Points
- Section 9A of CPC stands repealed by Section 32 of CPC (Amendment) Act
- 1999 and Section 16 of CPC (Amendment) Act
- 2002
- Issue of jurisdiction cannot be tried as preliminary issue under Section 9A after repeal
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 24
Civil Revision Application No.54 of 2006
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for Applicant, Mr.Surel S.Shah for Respondent
Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging an order rejecting a preliminary issue on jurisdiction under Section 9A CPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 5th December 2005 which rejected the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit, and the issue was wrongly decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune) rejected the preliminary issue on jurisdiction on 5th December 2005.
Issues
Whether Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to Maharashtra, stands repealed by the CPC (Amendment) Acts of 1999 and 2002.
Whether the trial court could decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9A after its repeal.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the trial court's order deciding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9A was unsustainable because Section 9A stands repealed.
The respondent's arguments are not mentioned in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to Maharashtra, stands repealed by Section 32 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 16 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002. Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction cannot be tried as a preliminary issue under Section 9A; it must be decided along with other issues at the final stage.
Judgment Excerpts
This Revision Application takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune dated 5th December 2005 rejecting the preliminary issue raised at the instance of the Applicant about the jurisdiction of the Court to try and decide the Suit as instituted before that Court.
In the interregnum, however, this Court in an unreported decision ... has taken the view that Section 9A of the Code, as applicable to State of Maharashtra, stands repealed by Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and also by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2002.
Procedural History
The suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The applicant raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. The trial court rejected that issue on 5th December 2005. The applicant filed Civil Revision Application No.54 of 2006 in the Bombay High Court challenging that order. During the pendency of the revision, the Bombay High Court in another case held that Section 9A CPC stands repealed. The High Court then allowed the revision and set aside the trial court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9A, Section 32 of CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, Section 16 of CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002
