Nusli Neville Wadia Vs Ivory Properties & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered a reference arising from conflicting interpretations of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as inserted through the Maharashtra Amendment Acts of 1970 and 1977. The issue before the Court was whether the expression “jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit” under Section 9A included questions of limitation and whether limitation could be decided as a preliminary issue while considering interim relief applications.
The reference was made because one decision had held that limitation could not be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9A, whereas another decision treated limitation as falling within the broader meaning of jurisdiction. The Court examined the legislative history, statements of objects and reasons, and the language of Section 9A to determine its scope.
The Court noted that Section 9A was introduced to prevent abuse of interim injunctions in suits instituted without complying with mandatory legal requirements, particularly notice under Section 80 CPC. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, courts had been granting interim relief without examining jurisdictional objections, enabling plaintiffs to withdraw suits later and refile them after curing defects. To address this misuse, Section 9A required courts to first determine objections relating to jurisdiction before granting or setting aside interim relief.
