Jurisdictional objection must be decided first before interim relief, and a summary order can be set aside for fresh adjudication.

When jurisdiction is specifically challenged in an application for interim relief, Section 9A requires the court to decide that objection as a preliminary issue before finally granting or vacating such relief. The provision is treated as a self-contained scheme giving priority to the jurisdictional question and requiring a full opportunity to place material. An order dealing with the objection and merits in a summary manner, without adequate consideration of rival contentions, is unsustainable and may be set aside for fresh adjudication. The matter should then be remanded for reconsideration on both jurisdiction and merits, with appropriate temporary protective conditions preserved if necessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection to the City Civil Court's jurisdiction was required to be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A before granting or continuing interim relief. (ii) Whether the impugned order, passed without adequate consideration of the jurisdictional objection and merits, ought to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

Issue (i): Whether the objection to the City Civil Court's jurisdiction was required to be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A before granting or continuing interim relief.

Analysis: Section 9A contemplates that when jurisdiction is objected to at the hearing of an application for interim relief, the Court must determine that objection as a preliminary issue before finally granting or vacating such relief. The provision creates a self-contained scheme under which the jurisdictional question must receive priority and be decided on a full opportunity to place material, even where the motion for interim relief is heard along with it.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was required to be decided as a preliminary issue in the manner indicated by Section 9A.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order, passed without adequate consideration of the jurisdictional objection and merits, ought to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The order under challenge dealt with the jurisdictional objection and the merits in a summary manner, without adequate discussion of the rival contentions. Since the jurisdictional issue could affect the Court's authority to proceed further and the merits also required fuller consideration, the proper course was to set aside the order and restore the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication with a full opportunity to both sides.

Conclusion: The impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the interim order was vacated, and the dispute was sent back for fresh determination with temporary protective conditions preserved in modified form.

Ratio Decidendi: When jurisdiction is specifically questioned in a motion for interim relief, the Court must decide that objection as a preliminary issue before finally dealing with the interim relief, and a summary disposal without adequate adjudication is unsustainable.

---