2015 (1) TMI 1490 - SC - Indian Laws

Plea of limitation - whether the question of limitation could be considered as preliminary issue Under Section 9A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908? - HELD THAT - Section 9A of the Code requires the Court to decide the issue as to jurisdiction before final adjudication on the application for interim relief. The language employed in Section 9A is clear and unambiguous. Section 9A(1) contemplates that when a person makes an objection to jurisdiction of the Court the Court shall determine such objection on jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the application for interim relief - Section 9A(2) provides that the Court shall have the power to grant interim relief as it may deem appropriate pending determination of such preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction before it. The provision read in its entirety neither contemplates nor refers to any circumstance where an objection besides the jurisdiction of the Court may be determined as a preliminary issue. It only contemplates the issue of jurisdiction to be framed and determined as a preliminary issue by the Court. The expression jurisdiction in Section 9A is used in a narrow sense that is the Court s authority to entertain the suit at the threshold. The limits of this authority are imposed by a statute charter or commission. If no restriction is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. The question of jurisdiction sensu stricto has to be considered with reference to the value place and nature of the subject matter. The classification into territorial jurisdiction pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the subject-matter is of a fundamental character. Undoubtedly the jurisdiction of a Court may get restricted by a variety of circumstances expressly mentioned in a statute charter or commission. This inherent jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the pecuniary and territorial limits laid down by law and also on the subject-matter of the suit - The law of limitation operates on the bar on a party to agitate a case before a Court in a suit or other proceedings on which the Court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain but by operation of the law of limitation it would not warrant adjudication. A perusal of the Statement of Object and Reasons of the Amendment Act would clarify that Section 9A talks of maintainability only on the question of inherent jurisdiction and does not contemplate issues of limitation. Section 9A has been inserted in the Code to prevent the abuse of the Court process where a Plaintiff drags a Defendant to the trial of the suit on merits when the jurisdiction of the Court itself is doubtful - In the instant case the preliminary issue framed by the Trial Court is with regard to the question of limitation. Such issue would not be an issue on the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore the Trial Court was not justified in framing the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue by invoking its power Under Section 9A of the Code. The High Court has erred in not considering the statutory ambit of Section 9A while approving the preliminary issue framed by the Trial Court and thus rejecting the writ petition filed by the Appellant. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether the question of limitation could be considered as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Consideration of Limitation as a Preliminary Issue
The appeal involved a dispute where the Trial Court framed the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code. The Plaintiff contended that the scope of framing a preliminary issue was limited to jurisdiction only, as per the state amendment inserting Section 9A. The Plaintiff argued that including the issue of limitation was erroneous. The Defendant, however, supported the decision of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 9A, emphasizing that it mandates deciding jurisdiction before interim relief applications. The Court highlighted that the provision focused solely on jurisdiction and did not allow for other issues like limitation to be framed as preliminary. The Court cited a previous case to explain the narrow interpretation of "jurisdiction" in this context. It clarified that jurisdiction referred to the Court's authority to entertain a suit initially, not issues like limitation. The Court also referred to the legislative intent behind Section 9A, which aimed to prevent abuse of court processes by ensuring jurisdictional clarity before proceeding to trial on merits.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court's framing of the limitation issue as a preliminary one under Section 9A was unjustified. The Court criticized the High Court's approval of this framing and subsequent dismissal of the Plaintiff's writ petition. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court. It directed the Trial Court to continue the trial promptly and in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings.