Section 9A preliminary issue rule requires bona fide limitation objections to be decided before final interim relief is disposed of.

A bona fide limitation objection was treated as a jurisdictional issue capable of being raised under Section 9A CPC and had to be tried first as a preliminary issue; final disposal of the interim relief motion before that determination was unsustainable. The Court also held that broad ad interim injunctive relief was not justified where there was substantial delay in approaching the Court and the project had progressed with third-party transactions, though limited protective directions could still be made through accounting and deposit safeguards pending the preliminary determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an objection that the suit was barred by limitation could be raised and tried as a preliminary issue, and whether the Motion for interim relief could be finally disposed of before that issue was decided. (ii) Whether ad interim injunctive relief was warranted in view of the delay in approaching the Court and the surrounding equities.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an objection that the suit was barred by limitation could be raised and tried as a preliminary issue, and whether the Motion for interim relief could be finally disposed of before that issue was decided.

Analysis: Section 9A is mandatory where an objection to jurisdiction is taken at the hearing of an application for interim relief. The expression "to entertain such a suit" is not confined to cases where the objection would dispose of the suit in its entirety. A jurisdictional objection may relate to the whole claim or even to part of the cause of action. The Court also held that the objection must not be frivolous or merely dilatory, and that a minimal threshold enquiry may be made to test whether the jurisdictional objection is bona fide. On the facts, the plea of limitation raised by Ferani was not frivolous or lacking in bona fides. Once the issue of limitation was required to be tried as a preliminary issue, the Motion for interim relief could not be finally disposed of before that determination.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rightly raised as a preliminary issue under Section 9A, and the final disposal of the Motion for interim relief before deciding that issue was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether ad interim injunctive relief was warranted in view of the delay in approaching the Court and the surrounding equities.

Analysis: The Court found substantial delay both from the time disputes first arose and from the institution of the suit to the first request for ad interim relief. It also found that construction and third-party transactions had progressed in the meantime, making a broad restraint on dealings commercially disruptive. While the allegations of fraud and the interpretation of the development agreement required closer examination at the hearing of the Motion, the material then on record did not justify a wide ad interim order halting the project or preventing dealings with constructed units without consent. The Court instead considered that limited protection could be secured through accounting and continued deposit of the administrator's share.

Conclusion: Broad ad interim injunctive relief was not warranted, though limited protective directions were justified pending decision on the preliminary issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the impugned final disposal of the interim Motion was set aside, the limitation objection was directed to be tried first, and interim protection was confined to accounting and deposit directions pending that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: When a bona fide jurisdictional objection, including limitation, is raised at the hearing of an application for interim relief, it must be decided first as a preliminary issue under Section 9A, and the court may not finally dispose of the interim application before that determination, though limited protective relief may still be granted in the meantime.

---