Limitation as a jurisdictional objection may be decided as a preliminary issue under Maharashtra's special civil procedure rule.

Under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable in Maharashtra, a limitation objection may amount to a jurisdictional objection and must be decided as a preliminary issue at the interim stage. The provision is a special, self-contained procedure with a non obstante clause, so it overrides the general rule in Order XIV Rule 2 CPC in Maharashtra matters. The Court relied on the wider statutory meaning of "jurisdiction" and the effect of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which bars entertaining time-barred suits, and upheld the impugned orders treating limitation as a preliminary jurisdictional issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether an objection that the suit is barred by limitation can be treated as an objection to jurisdiction and decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, notwithstanding Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 9A is a special and self-contained procedure inserted by the Maharashtra amendment, with a non obstante clause, requiring the court to decide an objection to its jurisdiction at the stage of interim relief as a preliminary issue. The expression "jurisdiction" is context-dependent and was construed in a wider sense in the statutory setting and legislative purpose of Section 9A. The law of limitation, by virtue of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, bars the court from entertaining a time-barred suit, and prior decisions had treated limitation as a matter going to jurisdiction. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the ordinary rule for trying preliminary issues, but Section 9A, as a special provision, overrides that general procedure in Maharashtra matters. The Court held that the contrary view could not prevail in the face of binding larger-Bench authority and the mandatory character of Section 9A.

Conclusion: An objection that the suit is barred by limitation can be tried as a preliminary issue under Section 9A, and the impugned orders treating limitation as a jurisdictional objection were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the suits were liable to be examined for limitation as a preliminary jurisdictional issue under the Maharashtra amendment, and the High Court's view was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable in Maharashtra, limitation may constitute a jurisdictional objection that must be decided as a preliminary issue at the interim stage, notwithstanding the general procedure under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---