TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court stresses evidence in jurisdiction issue under Civil Procedure Code Section 9-A</h1> <h3>Meher Singh Versus Deepak Sawhny & Another</h3> The High Court of Bombay considered the issue of parties leading evidence when deciding the preliminary jurisdiction issue under section 9-A of the Civil ... - Issues involved: The judgment addresses the issue of whether parties are required to be given an opportunity to lead evidence while deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction as contemplated u/s 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code.Summary:The High Court of Bombay considered the matter referred to a larger Bench for determination of the issue regarding the requirement of parties to lead evidence when deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction u/s 9-A. The Court noted the importance of this issue, especially as it is frequently raised in the Original Side of the Court and subordinate courts. Section 9-A mandates that if an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised during the hearing of an application for interim relief in a suit, the Court must determine the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary matter before granting or setting aside the interim relief. The Court may also grant interim relief pending the determination of the jurisdiction issue.The Court examined the legal position that the jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the averments in the plaint and not by subsequent defenses raised by the defendant. The Court disagreed with previous decisions and referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. The Court analyzed the Statement of Objects and Reasons for adding section 9-A to the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the need to address abuses in granting injunctions without considering jurisdictional issues.The judgment discussed the interplay between section 9-A and Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. While Rule 2 of Order XIV allows for the pronouncement of judgment on all issues, section 9-A requires the preliminary determination of jurisdiction before granting interim relief. The Court highlighted that section 9-A departs from the usual procedure under Order XIV to crystallize parties' rights at an earlier stage. It emphasized that the determination of jurisdiction under section 9-A may involve a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating the parties to lead evidence for a final adjudication.The Court concluded that section 9-A necessitates a different approach from the usual determination of jurisdiction at the prima facie stage. It highlighted the importance of allowing parties to lead evidence for a thorough adjudication of jurisdictional issues. The judgment referenced previous cases to support the view that jurisdiction should be decided based on the plaint's averments and may require evidence if factual disputes arise.In light of the above analysis, the Court held that section 9-A requires the preliminary issue of jurisdiction to be determined after proper adjudication, including the opportunity for parties to lead evidence. The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind adding section 9-A to prevent abuses in granting injunctions without addressing jurisdictional issues. The reference was disposed of accordingly, and the issuance of a certified copy of the order was expedited.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
