TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the issue of limitation had to be tried as a preliminary issue under Section 9A or Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the trial court could re-frame the issue without first hearing the petitioners.
Issue (i): Whether the issue of limitation had to be tried as a preliminary issue under Section 9A or Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Section 9A applies only when an objection to jurisdiction is raised at the stage of hearing an application for interim relief. Once the suit proceeds on merits, that provision does not govern. Under Order XIV Rule 2, a preliminary issue may be tried first only if it relates to jurisdiction or a statutory bar and can be disposed of as an issue of law alone. Where limitation depends on facts and requires evidence, it is not bound to be tried as a preliminary issue in every case. The Court also held that limitation is generally a rule of procedure and that a court with jurisdiction can decide the issue correctly or incorrectly without acting without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The issue of limitation was not required to be tried as a preliminary issue on the facts of the case, and the impugned direction to decide it with the other issues was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the trial court could re-frame the issue without first hearing the petitioners.
Analysis: Order XIV Rule 5 empowers the court to amend, strike out, or re-frame issues at any stage before decree. The parties have no vested right to insist on being heard before such re-framing, though they may later request amendment or deletion of issues. The absence of prior hearing therefore did not vitiate the order.
Conclusion: The trial court was competent to re-frame the issue without prior hearing of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The civil revision application was rejected, and the order directing that the limitation question be tried with the other issues was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A limitation issue can be treated as a preliminary issue only when it is capable of decision as a pure question of law; if evidence is required, the court may direct it to be tried with the other issues, and issue re-framing under Order XIV Rule 5 does not require prior hearing of the parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
