2002 (9) TMI 900 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of Limitation
2. Jurisdiction of the Court
3. Framing and Re-framing of Issues
4. Preliminary Issue under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Limitation:
The petitioners contended that the trial court should have decided the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue. The suit was filed on 20-1-1995 for a declaration and injunction regarding property matters. The petitioners argued that the trial court's decision to address the limitation issue along with other issues was contrary to natural justice and procedural norms. They relied on a precedent that emphasized the necessity of addressing limitation as it touches upon the court's jurisdiction. However, the court held that the issue of limitation, which requires evidence, should be decided along with other issues unless it can be disposed of purely as a legal issue without evidence. The court noted that the reliefs sought were within the three-year limitation period from the orders challenged.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court:
Section 9 of the C.P.C. and Section 9A were discussed to determine the court's jurisdiction. The court highlighted that jurisdiction issues must be addressed if raised during interim relief applications. The court emphasized that jurisdictional issues could be framed and decided as preliminary issues if they are purely legal. However, if they involve factual determinations requiring evidence, they should be decided along with other issues. The court clarified the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction, noting that an error in deciding jurisdiction does not nullify the court's authority.

3. Framing and Re-framing of Issues:
The court discussed the powers under Order XIV of the C.P.C., particularly Rule 5, which allows the court to amend or strike out issues at any stage before passing a decree. The court emphasized that framing issues is primarily the court's responsibility to narrow down the dispute and ensure both parties understand the case they need to address. Parties can assist but cannot insist on being heard before issues are framed or re-framed. The court held that the trial court's decision to address the limitation issue along with other issues did not violate natural justice or procedural norms.

4. Preliminary Issue under Section 9A of the C.P.C.:
The court discussed Section 9A, which mandates that jurisdictional objections raised during interim relief applications must be decided as preliminary issues. The court clarified that this provision applies only during the hearing of interim applications and not once the suit proceeds on merits. The court referred to a precedent where the issue of limitation was deemed to touch upon jurisdiction, but noted that this was based on the pleadings in the plaint itself. The court held that the trial court's decision to address the limitation issue along with other issues was appropriate as it required evidence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that:
1. The trial court's decision to address the limitation issue along with other issues was justified as it required evidence.
2. Jurisdictional issues must be addressed if raised during interim relief applications but can be decided along with other issues if they require evidence.
3. The trial court's power to frame and re-frame issues does not require pre-hearing of parties, and parties can request amendments if necessary.
4. The precedent in Sudesh's case was specific to its facts and not applicable where limitation issues require evidence.

The civil revision application was rejected, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.