Dismissed

Punam Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Pratap Issardas Bhatia and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2013APP/104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an appeal against an order framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction under Section 9A CPC. The Court held that unlike Order VII Rule 11 rejections which rely on the plaint alone, Section 9A determinations must address the specific jurisdictional objection raised in the plea.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; impugned order framed under section 9A CPC held correct.

Punam Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

skn

104.13-app

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2013 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2418 OF 2012 IN

¶7

SUIT NO. 1894 OF 2010

¶8

Punam Co-operative Housing Society.

¶9

... Appellant.

¶10

versus

¶11

Pratap Issardas Bhatia and others.

¶12

... Respondents.

¶13

K.J.Kukreja i/b. Jayesh Vyas for the appellant.

¶14

Shilpan Gaonkar i/b. S.Mohommedbhai & Co. for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶15

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C GUPTE JJ.

¶16

5 August 2013.

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge framing a preliminary issue under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that when a preliminary issue is framed under Section 9A, the defence should not be looked at and it is only on a reading of the plaint that the issue can be framed. The submission confounds the power of the Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the jurisdiction under Section 9A. When the Court rejects

skn

104.13-app

2/2

the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action or under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on the ground that the plaint appears to be barred by any law, it is the averments in the plaint alone which have to be looked at and not the defence. However, section 9A stands on a completely different footing. Section 9A postulates that where at the stage of granting or setting aside the order of interim relief, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such a suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application, the issue as to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. Section 9A, therefore, clearly contemplates that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised. Obviously, therefore, the Court has to give due regard to the objection raised and the observations which are contained in the impugned order are confined only to that. The learned Single Judge has correctly framed a preliminary issue under section 9A.

¶24

The impugned order calls for no interference. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)

¶26

(S.C.Gupte, J.)

Punam Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Pratap Issardas Bhatia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punam Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Pratap Issardas Bhatia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Chamber of Agriculture Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pradeep Chandrakant Indulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jugal Shriniwas Rathi and Anr. Vs Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited and Ors.

Smt. Bharati Jinendrakumar Diwakar and Vivek J. Diwakar Vs Kalpana Kapurchand Barlota

Dilip P. Patel and 2 Ors. Vs Acme Associates and 12 Ors.

Dilip P. Patel and 7 Ors. Vs M/S. Acme Associates