2019 (10) TMI 1314 - SC - Indian Laws

Maharashtra Amendment Act: Section 9A Limits 'Jurisdiction' to Court Authority, Excludes Limitation Issues.

The SC held that 'jurisdiction' under Section 9A of the CPC, as amended by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977, refers strictly to the Court's inherent ... Interpretation of statute - interpretation of expression 'jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit' used in Section 9A of Code of Civil Procedure - insertion by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977 - It has been opined that the word 'jurisdiction' Under Section 9A is wide enough to include the issue of limitation as the expression has been used in the broader sense and is not restricted to conventional definition under pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. HELD THAT:- The jurisdiction to entertain has different connotation from the jurisdictional error committed in exercise thereof. There is a difference between the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. The expression jurisdiction has been used in Code of Civil Procedure at several places in different contexts and takes colour from the context in which it has been used. The existence of jurisdiction is reflected by the fact of amenability of the judgment to attack in the collateral proceedings. If the court has an inherent lack of jurisdiction, its decision is open to attack as a nullity. While deciding the issues of the bar created by the law of limitation, res judicata, the Court must have jurisdiction to decide these issues. Under the provisions of Section 9A and Order XIV Rule 2, it is open to decide preliminary issues if it is purely a question of law not a mixed question of law and fact by recording evidence. The decision in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited [2015 (4) TMI 1230 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be said to be laying down the law correctly. We have considered the decisions referred to therein, they are in different contexts. The decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Meher Singh [1999 (9) TMI 978 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holding that Under Section 9A the issue to try a suit/jurisdiction can be decided by recording evidence if required and by proper adjudication, is overruled. We hold that the decision in Kamlakar Shantaram [1975 (8) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] has been correctly decided and cannot be said to be per incuriam, as held in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited. Section 2 of Maharashtra Second Amendment Act, 2018 which provides that where consideration of preliminary issue framed Under Section 9A is pending on the date of commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said issue shall be decided and disposed of by the court Under Section 9A as if the provision Under Section 9A has not been deleted, does not change the legal scenario as to what can be decided as a preliminary issue Under Section 9A, Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable in Maharashtra - The saving created by the provision of Section 2 where consideration of preliminary issue framed Under Section 9A is pending on the date of commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018, can be decided only if it comes within the parameters as found by us on the interpretation of Section 9A. We reiterate that no issue can be decided only under the guise of the provision that it has been framed Under Section 9A and was pending consideration on the date of commencement of the (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the term 'jurisdiction' under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977.2. Whether the issue of limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A.3. The scope and application of Section 9A in relation to Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC.4. The impact of the Maharashtra Amendment Ordinance, 2018, and subsequent amendments on Section 9A.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of 'Jurisdiction' under Section 9A of the CPC:The Court examined the interpretation of the term 'jurisdiction' as used in Section 9A of the CPC, introduced by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977. The term 'jurisdiction' in Section 9A was debated to determine if it includes the issue of limitation. The Court concluded that the word 'jurisdiction' in Section 9A is used in a narrow sense, referring to the Court's inherent authority to entertain a suit at the threshold. It does not extend to issues of limitation, which are considered a bar to the suit created by law but do not affect the Court's inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. Whether the Issue of Limitation can be Decided as a Preliminary Issue under Section 9A:The Court analyzed conflicting views from previous judgments, particularly the decisions in Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe and Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited. It was held that the issue of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A. The Court emphasized that Section 9A is meant to address the Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit, not issues like limitation, which require factual determination and are mixed questions of law and fact. The Court overruled the decision in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which had extended the scope of Section 9A to include the issue of limitation.3. Scope and Application of Section 9A in Relation to Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC:The Court differentiated between Section 9A and Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. Order XIV Rule 2 allows for the determination of preliminary issues of law, including jurisdiction and bars created by any law for the time being in force. However, Section 9A specifically mandates the determination of the Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit as a preliminary issue. The Court clarified that Section 9A has a narrower scope and is not as comprehensive as Order XIV Rule 2. The Court reiterated that only pure questions of law regarding the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit can be decided under Section 9A, not mixed questions of law and fact.4. Impact of the Maharashtra Amendment Ordinance, 2018, and Subsequent Amendments on Section 9A:The Court considered the legislative changes brought by the Maharashtra Amendment Ordinance, 2018, and the subsequent amendments. Section 9A was deleted by the 2018 Ordinance, and the pending preliminary issues framed under Section 9A were to be treated as issues under Order XIV of the CPC. However, the Maharashtra Second Amendment Act, 2018, reinstated the requirement to decide pending preliminary issues under Section 9A as if it had not been deleted. The Court held that these legislative changes do not alter the interpretation of Section 9A. The issues framed under Section 9A must still be within the parameters established by the Court, focusing solely on the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the term 'jurisdiction' under Section 9A of the CPC refers to the Court's inherent authority to entertain a suit and does not include issues of limitation. The issue of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A. The scope of Section 9A is narrower than that of Order XIV Rule 2, and it is limited to determining the Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit as a pure question of law. The legislative changes in 2018 do not affect this interpretation. The decision in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited was overruled, and the decision in Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe was upheld.