Section 9A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a State Amendment to The Code, inserted by Section 3 of The Maharashtra Act No. 65/1977. Section 9A is mandatory in nature. It mandates the Court to decide the jurisdiction of the Court before proceeding with a suit and granting interim relief by way of injunction. In Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe v. Baburav Vishnu Javalkar, 2015 (3) SCALE 34 it was held the expression ‘jurisdiction’ in Section 9A is used in the narrow sense and does not contemplate issues of limitation. A 2-Judge Bench in Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Praveen D. Desai, [Civil Appeal No.7732 of 2011] has considered that Kamalakar, “with great respect”, is a precedent “of no moment”, “without any argument, without any citation of authority”, contrary to the law settled. The term ‘jurisdiction’, in Section 9A, is a “term of art”, “used in a wider sense and is not restricted to the conventional definition of either pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction.” When Section 9A stands attracted, the Court is precluded from adjudicating the matter on merits, unless it decides the plea of limitation as a preliminary issue.
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings of the judges but also curiosities of lawyers and the law. This blog is not of obligation but of delight. I frankly confess my ignorance of much that ought to be included from overseas jurisdictions; and I utter a gentle prayer that those who know better would lighten my darkness. I am confident that I am not alone in my refusal to believe that the law is tedious or that Indians really like all their law dull. For all that has escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.