For deciding the issue of res-judicata
the evidence will have to be led. The issue of
res-judicata is mixed question of law and fact.
The parties will have to adduce evidence about
the identity of the properties in both the suit
i.e. earlier adjudicated suit and present suit,
so also the Court will be required to consider
the prayer involved in the earlier suit, whether
the issue involved was directly and substantially
in issue in earlier suit or colateral in issue.
The competency of the Court deciding earlier suit
etc., all these facets will have to be considered
by the Court. It is not such an issue which is
contemplated U/s 9-A of the C.P.C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.8206 OF 2012.
Kisanrao S/o Raghvendrarao Kulkarni,
Versus
1. Sunil S/o Vyankatrao Kulkarni,
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 06.11.2012.
citation;2013 (3) MH L J 526
1. The Respondent/plaintiff has filed suit
bearing RCS No.79/2008 against the present
petitioner and others for declaration of
ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of
5 hectares 16 ares portion from Gat No.688, old
S.No.207 of village Dapka, Tq.Mukhed.
2. The petitioner by filing the Written
Statement denied the claim of the plaintiff. The
petitioner averred that the earlier litigation
between the plaintiff No.1's father and the
petitioner would operate as res-judicata within
the meaning of Section 11 of the C.P.C. The
Respondents had also filed application Exh.5.
3. The petitioner filed an application
purportedly invoking Section 9-A of the C.P.C.
for framing the issue of resjudicata vis-a-vis
jurisdiction. The said application was 'filed'
by the Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present
petition.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:22 :::Bombay High Court
3 W.P.No.8206/12
4. Earlier the petitioner had also filed
an application requesting the trial Court to
frame issue U/s 11 of the C.P.C. and decide the
said issue before hearing of temporary injunction
application. The same is also rejected.
5. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the present suit filed by
the plaintiff is barred by the principle of resjudicata in view of the judgment and decree
passed in previous suit bearing RCS No.60/1975.
The said suit was filed by the present petitioner
against the Respondent No.1's father and in the
said suit, the petitioner has been held and
declared owner and in possession of the suit
land. The said judgment is confirmed upto the
High Court. The learned counsel submits that the
principle of res-judicata debars the Court from
exercising its jurisdiction and the said issue
will be an issue concerning the jurisdiction of
the Court and as such is required to be framed
U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. as a preliminary issue.
The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Apex Court in a case of "Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
4 W.P.No.8206/12
Archana Kumar and another" reported in AIR 2005
Supreme Court 626(1). The learned counsel also
relies on the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in a case of "Thomas
M.Periera and another Vs. Anna R. D'Silva and
others" reported in 1992 B.C.J. 38, to contend
that an objection U/s 12 in effect raises a
question of jurisdiction to maintain the suit.
If the suit is not maintainable, the Court will
have no jurisdiction to go on with the suit and
as such will have to be decided as a preliminary
issue U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
6. The learned counsel further submits
that when an objection to the jurisdiction is
raised, it is duty of the Court to frame the said
issue as a preliminary issue U/s 9-A of the
C.P.C., more particularly, as temporary
injunction application is pending. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Arjun
Dada Gadage Vs. Mallappa Gurappa Chougule and
another" reported in AIR 2003 Bombay 441 and in a
case of "Radhakishin N. Advani Vs. Mrs. Sheila
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
5 W.P.No.8206/12
Gobind Mirchandani and another" reported in AIR
1977 Bombay 35(1).
7. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the
Respondent/plaintiff submits that while
dismissing the earlier application, the Court has
observed that the boundaries of the suit property
in the earlier suit appears to be different as
that of the present suit and it would require
evidence to be led by the parties.
8. According to the learned counsel the
issue of jurisdiction as contemplated U/s 9-A of
the C.P.C. is question of jurisdiction as
contemplated U/s 9 of the C.P.C. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court
in a case of "State of A.P. Vs. Manjeti Laxmi
Kantha Rao (Dead) by L.Rs. and others" reported
in (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 689 and the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Konda
Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Govt. of A.P. and others"
reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 258. It
is only if the jurisdiction of the Court is
expressly or impliedly barred by the other
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
6 W.P.No.8206/12
statute then only the said question can be
considered U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. The learned
counsel contends that the Court has rightly dealt
with the matter and no case for interference is
made out.
9. With the assistance of the learned
counsels, I have gone through the orders.
10. It would be seen that earlier, the
petitioner had filed an application for
dismissing the suit as barred by Section 11 of
the C.P.C. The Court while deciding the said
application framed the issue of res-judicata and
directed that the said issue shall be decided at
the final disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the
present application is filed U/s 9-A of the
C.P.C, contending that the issue of res-judicata
also goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the
Court and has to be decided U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
The Court did not allow the said application and
passed the order 'filed'.
11. The trial Court while dealing with
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
7 W.P.No.8206/12
earlier application seeking framing of the issue
of res-judicata as preliminary issue has observed
that boundaries of suit property in earlier suit
appear to be different. The Court has framed
issue of res-judicata to be tried along with all
other issues.
12. The moot question is whether the issue
of res-judicata can be framed and tried within
the meaning of Section 9-A of the C.P.C. It can
not be a matter of debate that question of resjudicata, limitation are matter of rules of
procedure. On account of the principle of resjudicata, the Court would not try the issue
which was direrctly and substantially in issue in
a previous suit. There are many instances of
rules of procedure by virtue of which the Court
would not grant relief to a party in a suit,
such as the suit being barred by limitation, the
relief being barred by virtue of provisions of
Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C., res-judicata, etc.
Section 9-A of the C.P.C. reads as under :
"9-A. Where at the hearing of
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
8 W.P.No.8206/12
application relating to interim
relief in a suit, objection to
jurisdiction is taken, such issue to
be decided by the Court as a
preliminary issue. - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Code or any other law for the
time being in force, if, at the
hearing of any application for
granting or setting aside an order
granting any interim relief, whether
by way of stay, injunction,
appointment of a receiver or
otherwise, made in any suit, 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 the
jurisdiction as a preliminary issue
before granting or setting aside the
order granting the interim relief.
Any such application shall be heard
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
9 W.P.No.8206/12
and disposed of by the Court as
expeditiously as possible and shall
not in any case be adjourned to the
hearing of the suit.
(2) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), at the
hearing of any such application, the
Court may grant such interim relief
as it may consider necessary, pending
determination by it of the
preliminary issue as to the
jurisdiction."
The learned Single Judge of this Court in a case
of "Popat Jaysingh Rajpure Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" reported in 2012 (5)
Mh.L.J. 884, had observed that the issue of
jurisdiction encompasses within itself the issue
as regards (a) territorial jurisdiction; (b)
pecuniary jurisdiction; and (c) the jurisdiction
relating to considering the subject matter of the
suit. It was further observed by the learned
Single Judge that the issue of jurisdiction has
to be addressed by considering the frame of the
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
10 W.P.No.8206/12
suit as it is, as otherwise the entire object of
introducing Section 9-A of the C.P.C. would be
lost. In said case it was held and observed that
whether certain defendants can be joined or have
been wrongly joined to the suit is not an issue
which would be within the domain of the trial
Court while deciding the jurisdictional issue
raised U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. In the said case,
the trial Court had dismissed the suit against
the defendants Nos.1 to 8 on the ground that it
had no jurisdiction against said defendants.
13. Provisions of Order XIV Rule 2(2) of
the C.P.C. enjoins the power to the Court to
frame preliminary issue in two contingencies as
enshrined in the said provision. The said subrule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV reads as under :
Rule 2. Court to pronounce judgment
on all issues. - (1) Notwithstanding
that a case may be disposed of on a
preliminary issue, the Court shall,
subject to the provisions of subrule (2), pronounce judgment on all
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
11 W.P.No.8206/12
issues.
(2) Where issues both of
law and of fact arise in the same
suit, and the Court is of opinion
that the case or any part thereof
may be disposed of on an issue of
law only, it may try that issue
first if that issue relates to -
(a) the jurisdiction of
the Court, or
(b) a bar to the suit
created by any law for the time
being in force, and for that purpose
may, if it thinks fit, postpone the
settlement of the other issues until
after that issue has been
determined, and may deal with the
suit in accordance with the decision
on that issue."
Perusal of the said provision it is manifest that
if a suit can be disposed of on an issue of law
relating to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
12 W.P.No.8206/12
suit created by any law for the time being in
force, the Court may decide the issue as
preliminary issue. The issue of jurisdiction as
contemplated in Order XIV Rule 2 (2)(a) is an
issue contemplated U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. The
issue of res-judicata would be a mixed question
of law and fact and not a pure question of law.
At the most issue of res-judicata could be the
one contemplated under Order XIV Rule 2(2) (b) of
the C.P.C. i.e. bar to the suit created by any
for the time being in force. The said issue under
order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the C.P.C. would not be
referable to Section 9-A of the C.P.C.
14. The Apex Court in a case of "Bhanu
Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another"
referred supra has observed that principle of
resjudicata debars a Court from exercising
jurisdiction. So also the Apex Court in
"Lachhman Singh (Deceased) through legal
representatives and others Vs. Hazara Singh
(Deceased) through legal representatives and
others" reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases
444, had observed that limitation is a question
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
13 W.P.No.8206/12
of jurisdiction. Still, the Apex Court in case
of "Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and others Vs.
Anton Elis Farel and others" reported in 2008
Supreme Court 1556, has held that normally the
issue of limitation could be dealt with only
after evidence is taken and not a preliminary
issue. The learned Single Judge of this Court in
case of "Fedroline Anthoney Joseph Vs. Vinod
Vishanji Dharod and Hazol Rodriques and others"
reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J.865, held that issue
of limitation can not be regarded as an objecton
as to jurisdiction of the Court, so as to invoke
Section 9-A of the C.P.C.
15. For deciding the issue of res-judicata
the evidence will have to be led. The issue of
res-judicata is mixed question of law and fact.
The parties will have to adduce evidence about
the identity of the properties in both the suit
i.e. earlier adjudicated suit and present suit,
so also the Court will be required to consider
the prayer involved in the earlier suit, whether
the issue involved was directly and substantially
in issue in earlier suit or colateral in issue.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
14 W.P.No.8206/12
The competency of the Court deciding earlier suit
etc., all these facets will have to be considered
by the Court. It is not such an issue which is
contemplated U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
16. A distinction will have to be made in
respect of a suit without jurisdiction and the
suit wherein the Court is refrained from trying
the suit on the basis of various other principles
such as res-judicata, limitation, bar of Order 2
Rule 2 of the C.P.C. etc. If the suit is barred
by any law, the same can also be dealt with U/o
VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., or a issue can be
framed and dealt U/o XIV Rule (2)(2)(b) of the
C.P.C. but certainly not U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
17. In light of the above, the Writ
Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp820612
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
15 W.P.No.8206/12
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::
Print Page
the evidence will have to be led. The issue of
res-judicata is mixed question of law and fact.
The parties will have to adduce evidence about
the identity of the properties in both the suit
i.e. earlier adjudicated suit and present suit,
so also the Court will be required to consider
the prayer involved in the earlier suit, whether
the issue involved was directly and substantially
in issue in earlier suit or colateral in issue.
The competency of the Court deciding earlier suit
etc., all these facets will have to be considered
by the Court. It is not such an issue which is
contemplated U/s 9-A of the C.P.C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.8206 OF 2012.
Kisanrao S/o Raghvendrarao Kulkarni,
Versus
1. Sunil S/o Vyankatrao Kulkarni,
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 06.11.2012.
citation;2013 (3) MH L J 526
1. The Respondent/plaintiff has filed suit
bearing RCS No.79/2008 against the present
petitioner and others for declaration of
ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of
5 hectares 16 ares portion from Gat No.688, old
S.No.207 of village Dapka, Tq.Mukhed.
2. The petitioner by filing the Written
Statement denied the claim of the plaintiff. The
petitioner averred that the earlier litigation
between the plaintiff No.1's father and the
petitioner would operate as res-judicata within
the meaning of Section 11 of the C.P.C. The
Respondents had also filed application Exh.5.
3. The petitioner filed an application
purportedly invoking Section 9-A of the C.P.C.
for framing the issue of resjudicata vis-a-vis
jurisdiction. The said application was 'filed'
by the Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present
petition.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:22 :::Bombay High Court
3 W.P.No.8206/12
4. Earlier the petitioner had also filed
an application requesting the trial Court to
frame issue U/s 11 of the C.P.C. and decide the
said issue before hearing of temporary injunction
application. The same is also rejected.
5. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the present suit filed by
the plaintiff is barred by the principle of resjudicata in view of the judgment and decree
passed in previous suit bearing RCS No.60/1975.
The said suit was filed by the present petitioner
against the Respondent No.1's father and in the
said suit, the petitioner has been held and
declared owner and in possession of the suit
land. The said judgment is confirmed upto the
High Court. The learned counsel submits that the
principle of res-judicata debars the Court from
exercising its jurisdiction and the said issue
will be an issue concerning the jurisdiction of
the Court and as such is required to be framed
U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. as a preliminary issue.
The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Apex Court in a case of "Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
4 W.P.No.8206/12
Archana Kumar and another" reported in AIR 2005
Supreme Court 626(1). The learned counsel also
relies on the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in a case of "Thomas
M.Periera and another Vs. Anna R. D'Silva and
others" reported in 1992 B.C.J. 38, to contend
that an objection U/s 12 in effect raises a
question of jurisdiction to maintain the suit.
If the suit is not maintainable, the Court will
have no jurisdiction to go on with the suit and
as such will have to be decided as a preliminary
issue U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
6. The learned counsel further submits
that when an objection to the jurisdiction is
raised, it is duty of the Court to frame the said
issue as a preliminary issue U/s 9-A of the
C.P.C., more particularly, as temporary
injunction application is pending. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Arjun
Dada Gadage Vs. Mallappa Gurappa Chougule and
another" reported in AIR 2003 Bombay 441 and in a
case of "Radhakishin N. Advani Vs. Mrs. Sheila
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
5 W.P.No.8206/12
Gobind Mirchandani and another" reported in AIR
1977 Bombay 35(1).
7. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the
Respondent/plaintiff submits that while
dismissing the earlier application, the Court has
observed that the boundaries of the suit property
in the earlier suit appears to be different as
that of the present suit and it would require
evidence to be led by the parties.
8. According to the learned counsel the
issue of jurisdiction as contemplated U/s 9-A of
the C.P.C. is question of jurisdiction as
contemplated U/s 9 of the C.P.C. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court
in a case of "State of A.P. Vs. Manjeti Laxmi
Kantha Rao (Dead) by L.Rs. and others" reported
in (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 689 and the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Konda
Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Govt. of A.P. and others"
reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 258. It
is only if the jurisdiction of the Court is
expressly or impliedly barred by the other
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
6 W.P.No.8206/12
statute then only the said question can be
considered U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. The learned
counsel contends that the Court has rightly dealt
with the matter and no case for interference is
made out.
9. With the assistance of the learned
counsels, I have gone through the orders.
10. It would be seen that earlier, the
petitioner had filed an application for
dismissing the suit as barred by Section 11 of
the C.P.C. The Court while deciding the said
application framed the issue of res-judicata and
directed that the said issue shall be decided at
the final disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the
present application is filed U/s 9-A of the
C.P.C, contending that the issue of res-judicata
also goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the
Court and has to be decided U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
The Court did not allow the said application and
passed the order 'filed'.
11. The trial Court while dealing with
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
7 W.P.No.8206/12
earlier application seeking framing of the issue
of res-judicata as preliminary issue has observed
that boundaries of suit property in earlier suit
appear to be different. The Court has framed
issue of res-judicata to be tried along with all
other issues.
12. The moot question is whether the issue
of res-judicata can be framed and tried within
the meaning of Section 9-A of the C.P.C. It can
not be a matter of debate that question of resjudicata, limitation are matter of rules of
procedure. On account of the principle of resjudicata, the Court would not try the issue
which was direrctly and substantially in issue in
a previous suit. There are many instances of
rules of procedure by virtue of which the Court
would not grant relief to a party in a suit,
such as the suit being barred by limitation, the
relief being barred by virtue of provisions of
Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C., res-judicata, etc.
Section 9-A of the C.P.C. reads as under :
"9-A. Where at the hearing of
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
8 W.P.No.8206/12
application relating to interim
relief in a suit, objection to
jurisdiction is taken, such issue to
be decided by the Court as a
preliminary issue. - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Code or any other law for the
time being in force, if, at the
hearing of any application for
granting or setting aside an order
granting any interim relief, whether
by way of stay, injunction,
appointment of a receiver or
otherwise, made in any suit, 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 the
jurisdiction as a preliminary issue
before granting or setting aside the
order granting the interim relief.
Any such application shall be heard
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
9 W.P.No.8206/12
and disposed of by the Court as
expeditiously as possible and shall
not in any case be adjourned to the
hearing of the suit.
(2) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), at the
hearing of any such application, the
Court may grant such interim relief
as it may consider necessary, pending
determination by it of the
preliminary issue as to the
jurisdiction."
The learned Single Judge of this Court in a case
of "Popat Jaysingh Rajpure Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" reported in 2012 (5)
Mh.L.J. 884, had observed that the issue of
jurisdiction encompasses within itself the issue
as regards (a) territorial jurisdiction; (b)
pecuniary jurisdiction; and (c) the jurisdiction
relating to considering the subject matter of the
suit. It was further observed by the learned
Single Judge that the issue of jurisdiction has
to be addressed by considering the frame of the
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
10 W.P.No.8206/12
suit as it is, as otherwise the entire object of
introducing Section 9-A of the C.P.C. would be
lost. In said case it was held and observed that
whether certain defendants can be joined or have
been wrongly joined to the suit is not an issue
which would be within the domain of the trial
Court while deciding the jurisdictional issue
raised U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. In the said case,
the trial Court had dismissed the suit against
the defendants Nos.1 to 8 on the ground that it
had no jurisdiction against said defendants.
13. Provisions of Order XIV Rule 2(2) of
the C.P.C. enjoins the power to the Court to
frame preliminary issue in two contingencies as
enshrined in the said provision. The said subrule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV reads as under :
Rule 2. Court to pronounce judgment
on all issues. - (1) Notwithstanding
that a case may be disposed of on a
preliminary issue, the Court shall,
subject to the provisions of subrule (2), pronounce judgment on all
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
11 W.P.No.8206/12
issues.
(2) Where issues both of
law and of fact arise in the same
suit, and the Court is of opinion
that the case or any part thereof
may be disposed of on an issue of
law only, it may try that issue
first if that issue relates to -
(a) the jurisdiction of
the Court, or
(b) a bar to the suit
created by any law for the time
being in force, and for that purpose
may, if it thinks fit, postpone the
settlement of the other issues until
after that issue has been
determined, and may deal with the
suit in accordance with the decision
on that issue."
Perusal of the said provision it is manifest that
if a suit can be disposed of on an issue of law
relating to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
12 W.P.No.8206/12
suit created by any law for the time being in
force, the Court may decide the issue as
preliminary issue. The issue of jurisdiction as
contemplated in Order XIV Rule 2 (2)(a) is an
issue contemplated U/s 9-A of the C.P.C. The
issue of res-judicata would be a mixed question
of law and fact and not a pure question of law.
At the most issue of res-judicata could be the
one contemplated under Order XIV Rule 2(2) (b) of
the C.P.C. i.e. bar to the suit created by any
for the time being in force. The said issue under
order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the C.P.C. would not be
referable to Section 9-A of the C.P.C.
14. The Apex Court in a case of "Bhanu
Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another"
referred supra has observed that principle of
resjudicata debars a Court from exercising
jurisdiction. So also the Apex Court in
"Lachhman Singh (Deceased) through legal
representatives and others Vs. Hazara Singh
(Deceased) through legal representatives and
others" reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases
444, had observed that limitation is a question
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
13 W.P.No.8206/12
of jurisdiction. Still, the Apex Court in case
of "Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and others Vs.
Anton Elis Farel and others" reported in 2008
Supreme Court 1556, has held that normally the
issue of limitation could be dealt with only
after evidence is taken and not a preliminary
issue. The learned Single Judge of this Court in
case of "Fedroline Anthoney Joseph Vs. Vinod
Vishanji Dharod and Hazol Rodriques and others"
reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J.865, held that issue
of limitation can not be regarded as an objecton
as to jurisdiction of the Court, so as to invoke
Section 9-A of the C.P.C.
15. For deciding the issue of res-judicata
the evidence will have to be led. The issue of
res-judicata is mixed question of law and fact.
The parties will have to adduce evidence about
the identity of the properties in both the suit
i.e. earlier adjudicated suit and present suit,
so also the Court will be required to consider
the prayer involved in the earlier suit, whether
the issue involved was directly and substantially
in issue in earlier suit or colateral in issue.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
14 W.P.No.8206/12
The competency of the Court deciding earlier suit
etc., all these facets will have to be considered
by the Court. It is not such an issue which is
contemplated U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
16. A distinction will have to be made in
respect of a suit without jurisdiction and the
suit wherein the Court is refrained from trying
the suit on the basis of various other principles
such as res-judicata, limitation, bar of Order 2
Rule 2 of the C.P.C. etc. If the suit is barred
by any law, the same can also be dealt with U/o
VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., or a issue can be
framed and dealt U/o XIV Rule (2)(2)(b) of the
C.P.C. but certainly not U/s 9-A of the C.P.C.
17. In light of the above, the Writ
Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp820612
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::Bombay High Court
15 W.P.No.8206/12
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2013 21:20:23 :::
No comments:
Post a Comment