Section 9A CPC permits a preliminary jurisdiction issue on limitation to be framed in a specific performance suit.

In a suit for specific performance, a limitation objection raised in the context of interim relief could be treated as a preliminary issue on jurisdiction and maintainability under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable in Maharashtra. The Court noted that such an issue may be framed and decided after both sides are given an opportunity to lead evidence. It distinguished the earlier Supreme Court decision because no pursis had been filed by both parties stating that no evidence would be led on the preliminary issue. As the impugned order only framed the issue and caused no prejudice, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction and maintainability under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for specific performance where limitation was raised as an objection.

Analysis: The objection to the suit was founded on limitation and was taken in the context of an application for interim relief. The Court noted that, in proceedings governed by section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable in Maharashtra, a preliminary issue could be framed and decided after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence. The reliance on the earlier Supreme Court decision was found inapplicable because, unlike that case, no pursis had been filed by both sides indicating that no evidence would be led on the preliminary issue. As the impugned order merely framed the issue and caused no prejudice to the petitioner, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.

Conclusion: The framing of the preliminary issue was upheld and the challenge to the order was rejected.

---