Section 9A jurisdiction objection cannot be revived after issues are framed and proceedings have advanced on merits.

Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory when a jurisdictional objection is raised at the proper stage, but it cannot be revived after the matter has moved beyond that stage and issues have been framed under Order XIV Rule 2. Here, the objection was raised in the written statement and by a separate application, yet that application was recorded as not pressed, was never revived, and was not challenged for a long period while the parties proceeded on merits. The court held that a belated attempt to recast issues could not unsettle the proceedings, particularly where the civil court had already been permitted to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the Collector's order. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' objection to the trial court's jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 required the impugned interim order to be set aside and the jurisdiction issue to be decided as a preliminary issue before disposal of the interim applications.

Analysis: The objection to jurisdiction was raised in the written statement and by a separate application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but that application was expressly recorded as not pressed and was not revived. The appellants did not challenge that order for a long period, pursued the counterclaim and interim relief on merits, and later sought recasting of issues after the trial court had already framed issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court applied the settled position that Section 9A is mandatory when invoked at the proper stage, but held that once the stage contemplated by Section 9A is over and the matter has moved under Order XIV Rule 2, the jurisdictional objection cannot be revived as a matter of strategy to unsettle proceedings already advanced. The court also noted that the civil court had been expressly permitted to decide the legality, correctness and propriety of the Collector's order.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected, and the appellants were not entitled to have the interim order set aside or the matter remanded for decision of Section 9A at that stage.

---