Bombay High Court Hears Appeal on Section 9A CPC Issue Concerning Land Rights. Court Considers Whether Trial Court Must Decide Jurisdiction Application Before Interim Relief in Suit Involving Salsette Act and Land Revenue Code.

Appeal from order challenging trial court's decision on an application under Section 9A of CPC concerning jurisdiction.

Direction that the trial court must decide the application under Section 9A before disposing of the interim application (Exhibit-5).

The trial court passed the impugned order dated 16 May 2013 in Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2012 and other suits.

Prior litigation between the parties included suits for accounts, writ petitions, letters patent appeals, and a Supreme Court order clarifying that the civil court would be at liberty to decide the legality of the Collector's order without being influenced by earlier observations.

Whether the trial court is bound to decide the application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before disposing of the application for interim relief (Exhibit-5).

Learned senior counsel for the contesting parties have addressed this Court only on the issue of jurisdiction at this stage and not on merits of the impugned order dated 16th May 2013. (Para 2)

By consent of the parties, the aforesaid appeals were heard finally at the admission stage only on the preliminary issue raised by the appellant (original defendant no.1) under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908... as to whether he was bound to decide the application filed under Section 9A of CPC before disposing of the application (Exhibit-5) filed by the respondent no.1. (Para 1) On 12th June 2012, the appellant filed an application under Section 9A of the CPC in the said Special Civil Suit No.147 of 2012 contending that the issue regarding status of the respondent nos.1 and 2 as the permanent holders or the occupants of the sui... (Para 15)

On or about 7 November 1870, a lease was executed by the then State of Bombay in favour of Ramchandra Laxmanji for 999 years. The appellant became lessee by deeds of assignment dated 22 March 1945 and 5 April 1945. A notification dated 19 December 1949 confirmed the appellant as land holder. The Government assumed management of the estate in 1949. In 1957, notification under Section 61 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was issued. The Salsette Act came into effect in 1952. The appellant filed Suit No. 123 of 1955 for accounts, leading to a decree on 14 September 1959, which was partly modified in appeal on 4 May 1962. Second Appeal No. 641 of 1964 held that Section 3 of Salsette Act did not affect the relation of grantee and tenant. Suit No. 272 of 1963 for accounts was decreed; civil appeal dismissed on 13 February 1998; second appeal dismissed on 27 January 1988; SLP dismissed on 3 November 1988. A third suit for accounts was decreed in 2008. In 1971, the appellant's name was removed from record of rights but was restored by High Court order dated 28 January 1989. Collector initiated proceedings under Section 3 of Salsette Act, holding appellant as superior holder. Writ petitions and LPAs challenging the Collector's orders were dismissed by High Court; Supreme Court dismissed SLPs on 28 November and 8 December 2011, clarifying civil court's liberty to decide. On 24 February 2012, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2012 seeking declarations and injunction. On 4 May 2012, appellant filed written statement and counter claim. On 12 June 2012, appellant filed application under Section 9A CPC. The trial court passed the impugned order on 16 May 2013. The appeals from order were filed, and were heard on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The Court reserved judgment on 20 December 2016 and pronounced it on 16 January 2017.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9A
• Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 158
• Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951: Section 3
• Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 61