Jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9-A is valid where the party consented and the statute applies.

Section 9-A in Maharashtra permits a jurisdictional objection raised at the hearing of an interim-relief application to be tried as a preliminary issue, overriding the ordinary rule under Order 14, Rule 2. Where the plaintiff consented before the trial court to first decide jurisdiction and evidence was recorded on that basis, the plaintiff could not later object in appeal that the issue was incapable of preliminary determination. The trial court was right to decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, and the appellate court erred in holding otherwise.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question of jurisdiction could be tried as a preliminary issue under section 9-A despite involving mixed questions of fact and law and despite the plaintiff's consent before the trial court.

Analysis: The plaintiff had accepted that the jurisdictional objection be decided first, and the trial court accordingly recorded evidence and decided the issue as a preliminary issue. In such circumstances, the plaintiff could not later contend in appeal that the issue could not be decided preliminarily after having taken a chance on the result. Section 9-A creates a special procedure applicable in Maharashtra and overrides the ordinary rule under Order 14, Rule 2 when an objection to jurisdiction is raised at the hearing of an interim-relief application. The appellate court failed to notice both the plaintiff's consent and the special statutory mandate under section 9-A, and wrongly treated the issue as one that could not be decided as a preliminary issue.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional issue was rightly decided as a preliminary issue by the trial court, and the appellate court's contrary view was unsustainable.

---