2015 (4) TMI 1230 - SC - Indian Laws

Section 9A: Jurisdictional Issues in Interim Relief Applications Clarified by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that Section 9A of the Maharashtra Amendment Act mandates deciding jurisdictional issues, ... Ambit and scope of Section 9A CPC as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act 1977 - Time limitation - binding precedents - whether an issue relating to a bar to the suit created by law of limitation can be tried as preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code? Held that: - Section 9A of the Maharashtra Amendment Act is a complete departure from the procedure provided under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the inconsistency contained in the Act of the Parliament viz., the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions contained in Section 9A of the State Act, having regard to the fact that the assent of the President was received, the provisions of the said Section has to be complied with and can be held to be a valid legislation. It is evident that the practice followed in the City Civil Court in filing the suits against the Government without giving notice under Section 80 of the CPC and after the interim relief continued the plaintiff takes permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit. As a matter of fact, the legislature intended to stop this abuse of process by introducing Section 9A in the CPC by Maharashtra amendment Act. By reason of such amendment the Court is now required to decide the issue of jurisdiction at the time of granting the relief or considering the application for vacating the interim relief. It is well settled that essentially the jurisdiction is an authority to decide a given case one way or the other. Further, even though no party has raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the court, the court has power to determine its own jurisdiction - in a case where the Court has no jurisdiction; it cannot confer upon it by consent or waiver of the parties. The provision of Section 9A as introduced by (Maharahtra Amendment) Act is mandatory in nature. It is a complete departure from the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2, C.P.C. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Ambit and scope of Section 9A CPC as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act 1977 vis-`a-vis Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Whether the term 'jurisdiction' in Section 9A includes an objection with regard to limitation.3. The procedural requirement under Section 9A for deciding preliminary issues.4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the case at hand.5. The binding nature of precedents and the principle of judicial discipline.Detailed Analysis:1. Ambit and Scope of Section 9A CPC:The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 9A CPC, which mandates that any objection to the jurisdiction of the court raised during an application for interim relief must be decided as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the interim relief. This provision was compared with Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, which allows the court to decide issues of law as preliminary issues only if they pertain to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law. The court noted that Section 9A is a specific provision applicable in Maharashtra and has a non-obstante clause, making it mandatory to decide jurisdictional issues at the interim stage.2. Inclusion of Limitation as a Jurisdictional Issue:The court held that the term 'jurisdiction' in Section 9A is used in a wider sense and includes objections related to the limitation. It was emphasized that the jurisdiction of a court includes the authority to decide matters that are litigated before it, and a plea of limitation concerns the jurisdiction of the court. The court referred to various precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, which held that a plea of limitation is a plea of law that concerns the jurisdiction of the court.3. Procedural Requirement under Section 9A:Section 9A requires that the issue of jurisdiction, including limitation, must be decided as a preliminary issue at the hearing of any application for interim relief. This procedure is a departure from Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, which allows discretion to the court to decide issues of law as preliminary issues. The court emphasized that Section 9A provides a self-contained scheme with a non-obstante clause, mandating the court to follow this provision.4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:The court examined whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the earlier suit was pursued with due diligence and good faith. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to show diligent prosecution of the earlier suit.5. Binding Nature of Precedents and Judicial Discipline:The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of judicial discipline and the binding nature of precedents. The court referred to several decisions, including Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangha, which emphasized that decisions of larger benches are binding on smaller benches. The court noted that the decision in Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe vs. Baburav Vishnu Javalkar, which took a contrary view on the interpretation of Section 9A, was not in line with the established precedents and was therefore not binding.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the impugned orders of the High Court, holding that Section 9A of the Maharashtra Amendment Act is mandatory and requires the court to decide jurisdictional issues, including limitation, as preliminary issues at the interim stage. The appeals were dismissed, and the court emphasized the need for consistency and adherence to binding precedents in judicial decisions.