2017 (1) TMI 1807 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies request to set aside interim order, directs appeals to proceed for final disposal.

The Estate Investments Company Pvt. Ltd Versus M/s. New Haven Pvt. Ltd, Smt. Madhu Harshad Doshi  , The State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Thane

The Estate Investments Company Pvt. Ltd Versus M/s. New Haven Pvt. Ltd, Smt. Madhu Harshad Doshi  , The State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Thane - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Legality, correctness, and propriety of the order passed by the Collector.3. Interim reliefs and counterclaims.4. Applicability of Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.5. Limitation and procedural issues.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:The primary issue was whether the learned trial Judge was bound to decide the application filed under Section 9A of the CPC before disposing of the application for interim relief (Exhibit-5). The appellant contended that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and this issue should be determined as a preliminary issue. The trial Judge, however, did not decide this jurisdictional issue first and proceeded to grant interim relief to the respondents. The appellant argued that this was a procedural error, citing various judgments which mandate that the issue of jurisdiction must be decided before granting interim relief.2. Legality, Correctness, and Propriety of the Order Passed by the Collector:The respondents filed a suit challenging the order of the Collector dated 5th September 2008, which held that the appellant was the superior holder of the suit land. The Supreme Court had previously clarified that the Civil Court could decide the legality, correctness, and propriety of the Collector's order without being influenced by previous observations. The respondents sought declarations regarding their possession and rights over the suit property, challenging the appellant's status as a superior holder.3. Interim Reliefs and Counterclaims:The respondents filed an application (Exhibit-5) for interim relief, which the trial Judge granted, restraining the appellant from disturbing their possession. The appellant filed a counterclaim and an application (Exhibit-29) for interim relief, which was rejected. The appellant argued that the trial Judge should have decided the jurisdictional issue first before granting or rejecting interim reliefs.4. Applicability of Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:The appellant raised the issue that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This was one of the grounds for their application under Section 9A of the CPC, which they argued should have been decided as a preliminary issue.5. Limitation and Procedural Issues:The appellant also raised the issue of limitation in their written statement, which touches upon the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Judge framed issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, including the issue of jurisdiction and limitation. The appellant later suggested recasting the issues, including the jurisdictional issue, but did not challenge the order framing these issues.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the appellant's issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the CPC was not pressed at the initial stage and was used as a litigational strategy. The trial Judge had already framed issues under Order XIV Rule 2, including jurisdiction, and the suit was ready for recording evidence. Setting aside the interim order at this stage would delay the trial further and defeat the purpose of Section 9A. The appellant's prayer to set aside the interim relief order and remand the matter back to the trial Judge for deciding the jurisdictional issue was rejected. The appeals were directed to proceed for final disposal on merits.