TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court criticizes framing limitation issue as preliminary under Section 9A, emphasizes jurisdiction vs. limitation distinction.</h1> <h3>Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe Versus Baburav Vishnu Javalkar and Ors.</h3> Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe Versus Baburav Vishnu Javalkar and Ors. - TMI Issues involved:- Whether the question of limitation could be considered as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure.Analysis:Issue 1: Consideration of Limitation as a Preliminary IssueThe appeal involved a dispute where the Trial Court framed the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code. The Plaintiff contended that the scope of framing a preliminary issue was limited to jurisdiction only, as per the state amendment inserting Section 9A. The Plaintiff argued that including the issue of limitation was erroneous. The Defendant, however, supported the decision of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 9A, emphasizing that it mandates deciding jurisdiction before interim relief applications. The Court highlighted that the provision focused solely on jurisdiction and did not allow for other issues like limitation to be framed as preliminary. The Court cited a previous case to explain the narrow interpretation of 'jurisdiction' in this context. It clarified that jurisdiction referred to the Court's authority to entertain a suit initially, not issues like limitation. The Court also referred to the legislative intent behind Section 9A, which aimed to prevent abuse of court processes by ensuring jurisdictional clarity before proceeding to trial on merits.ConclusionThe Supreme Court found that the Trial Court's framing of the limitation issue as a preliminary one under Section 9A was unjustified. The Court criticized the High Court's approval of this framing and subsequent dismissal of the Plaintiff's writ petition. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court. It directed the Trial Court to continue the trial promptly and in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
