Court upholds framing of preliminary issue on jurisdiction in specific performance suit under CPC. Parties can lead evidence.

The Court upheld the trial Court's decision to frame a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for specific performance. The Court found that parties are allowed to lead evidence in support of their contentions when deciding a preliminary issue, distinguishing a previous case where both parties had agreed not to do so. As both parties would have an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of maintainability before a final decision, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the trial Court's order.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to the legality and validity of the order of trial Court framing preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 16th December 2001.

Comprehensive details of the judgment:

1. The Petitioner filed a suit in 2011 for specific performance of an agreement dated 16th December 2001. The Respondent objected to the suit's maintainability on the ground of limitation by filing a say to the Petitioner's application for interim relief. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to the State of Maharashtra. The Court's decision to frame the preliminary issue was upheld as it was deemed necessary in the circumstances of the case.

2. The Petitioner relied on a decision of the Apex Court to argue against the framing of a preliminary issue in a suit for specific performance. However, the Court distinguished the cited case where both parties had agreed not to lead evidence on the preliminary issue. In the present case, no such agreement existed, and it is a settled position of law that parties are allowed to lead evidence in support of their contentions when deciding a preliminary issue. Therefore, the Court found the Apex Court decision inapplicable to the present case. The Court concluded that no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner as both parties would have an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of maintainability before a final decision is made. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the trial Court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---