Section 9A jurisdiction limits preliminary inquiry; limitation and benami objections needing evidence cannot be decided without trial.

Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure permits only a threshold inquiry into the court's inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit; it does not extend to disputed questions of limitation or benami that are mixed questions of law and fact and require evidence. The Bombay High Court held that such objections could not be decided as preliminary issues on the pleadings alone. It also held that consent at the stage of framing issues did not waive the appellant's legal objection or confer jurisdiction, and there can be no estoppel against law. The order dismissing the suit on preliminary issues was set aside and the suit restored for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation and benami objections could be decided as preliminary issues under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without recording evidence. (ii) Whether the appellant was barred by consent, waiver, or election from challenging the decision on the preliminary issues.

Issue (i): Whether limitation and benami objections could be decided as preliminary issues under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without recording evidence.

Analysis: Section 9A was held to be confined to the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit, namely its inherent competence to receive the matter at the threshold. The decision distinguished that limited enquiry from questions such as limitation and benami, which in the facts pleaded were mixed questions of law and fact and required evidence. The prior view allowing evidence under Section 9A was held to stand overruled by the later Supreme Court authority, and the Court emphasized that the scope of Section 9A could not be expanded to cover disputed factual matters or the merits of the bar under the Benami Act or limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation and benami issues could not validly be determined as preliminary issues under Section 9A on the pleadings alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was barred by consent, waiver, or election from challenging the decision on the preliminary issues.

Analysis: The consent recorded when the issues were framed was treated as relating only to the manner of framing and not as a waiver of the appellant's legal objection or as a conferment of jurisdiction. The Court held that consent cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists, and there can be no estoppel against law. The appellant's refusal to lead evidence did not cure the legal defect in proceeding under Section 9A on disputed mixed questions of fact and law.

Conclusion: The appellant was not precluded by consent, waiver, or approbation and reprobation from challenging the impugned decision.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order dismissing the suit on preliminary issues was set aside, the suit was restored to file for fresh consideration, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, only the Court's inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit can be decided as a preliminary issue; disputed questions of limitation or benami requiring evidence fall outside that limited enquiry, and consent cannot enlarge jurisdiction.

---