Court rejects objection to limitation in specific performance suit, ruling issue requires evidence

The Trial Court rejected the Applicant's objection to limitation in a suit for specific performance, ruling that the issue required evidence and was not solely a legal question. The Court found that Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not apply as the objection was not raised during an application for interim relief. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit for specific performance.
2. Bar of limitation on the suit.
3. Applicability of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Interpretation of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Jurisdiction of the Court in relation to limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit for Specific Performance:
The first respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30th August 1980 against the Applicant, who is the first defendant. The suit was instituted on 16th January 1998 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, and is currently pending. The Applicant has filed a Written Statement in response to the suit.

2. Bar of Limitation on the Suit:
The Applicant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that it was barred by limitation. The Trial Court was requested to frame a preliminary issue on this question. The first respondent contended that the application was filed to delay the trial and that the determination of the limitation question involved disputed facts requiring evidence at trial. The Trial Court, in its order dated 27th August 2001, decided that the issue of limitation would be determined based on evidence adduced at trial and dismissed the Applicant's application.

3. Applicability of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The Applicant relied on Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inserted by the Maharashtra Amendment of 1977, which mandates that if an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised at the hearing of an application for interim relief, the Court must determine it as a preliminary issue. The provision aims to prevent the abuse of granting injunctions without examining jurisdiction, as highlighted in the judgment of Meher Singh v. Deepak Sawhney, 1999 (1) BomCR 107.

4. Interpretation of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prescribes that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues, but may try an issue of law first if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law. Section 9A, however, departs from this procedure by mandating the determination of jurisdictional objections as preliminary issues, even if they involve mixed questions of law and fact, requiring evidence.

5. Jurisdiction of the Court in Relation to Limitation:
The Supreme Court in Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey, [1964] 1 SCR 495, held that a Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties does not act beyond its jurisdiction if it erroneously decides on limitation. This principle was reaffirmed in Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, [1999] 2 SCR 1189, stating that a suit decided despite being barred by limitation is not without jurisdiction but may be an error of law.

In the present case, the application filed by the Applicant did not satisfy the prerequisites of Section 9A, as it was not raised at the hearing of an application for interim relief. The objection to limitation was not a pure question of law but required evidence, as noted by the Trial Judge under Order 14, Rule 2(2).

Conclusion:
The Trial Court's decision to reject the application under Order 14, Rule 2(2) was justified, as the issue of limitation required evidence and was not a pure question of law. The provisions of Section 9A were not applicable in this context. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application was rejected.

---