This single judge order dismissed a civil revision application. The court held that the provision invoked (Section 9A of the CPC Maharashtra Amendment) had been repealed, rendering the revision application not maintainable.
Revision application dismissed as the impugned order was based on a repealed provision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2005
Ashoka Promoters Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner
versus
Lahanu Ramji Pawar & ors. .. Respondents
Mr.R.S. Apte with Mr.A.A. Garge for the petitioner.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 24th April 2007.
P.C.:
1. This Revision Application is directed
against the order dated 21st February 2005 passed on
the application of the petitioner filed under section
9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra
Amendment) for trying the issue regarding
jurisdiction of a preliminary issue. After hearing
the parties the trial court held that it had the
jurisdiction and therefore rejected the application.
2. In Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Vs. Nigam A. Mannan Beskar & ors. reported
in 2006(4) Bom.C.R. 217, I have held that section 9A
of the Code of Civil Procedure stands repealed by
reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act
1999 (Central Act 46 of 1999)and the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Central Act 22 of
2002).
3. As the Maharashtra Amendment introducing
section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure itself
stood repealed, application under section 9A of the
C.P.C itself was not maintainable. In the
circumstances, there is no merit in the Revision
Application which is hereby dismissed.
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) is maintainable after the provision was repealed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nigam A. Mannan Beskar & orsReferred¶16
Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nigam A. Mannan Beskar & ors reported in 2006(4) Bom.C.R. 217 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashoka Promoters Pvt.Ltd.
Lahanu Ramji Pawar
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court