Namdeo v. Manikrao
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XIV r. 2
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE
Judgment
Mr. N.S. Tekale, advocate holding for Mr. V.I. Thole, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Y.V. Kakade, advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15th March, 2012. PER COURT :
#1. Application tendered by petitioner for trial of issues of limitation as preliminary one has been turned down by the trial Court in view of order passed on 10-2-2011.
#2. Petitioner herein tendered an application under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to decide the issue of limitation as preliminary issue before proceeding to consider other issues. Application was opposed by respondent contending that there is no prayer made for grant of interim relief and as such provisions of section 9-A of the Code of 2 Civil Procedure are not applicable. Trial Court has considered arguments and found that provisions of section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable as there is no application for grant of any interim relief and as such there is no question of determination of issue of limitation before taking up other issues for consideration.
#3. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. Discretion is entrusted with the Court to dispose of the suit on consideration of preliminary issue if the issues relates to jurisdiction of the Court of bar of the suit created by any law for the time being in force. In the instant matter, trial Court has observed that the issue raised in respect of limitation is a mix question of law and facts and the Court has exercised discretion not in favour of rendering decision on preliminary issue before taking up other issues for consideration. I am of the view that trial Court has adopted reasonable approach in the matter and order passed by the trial Court below exh. 16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 348/2009 cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands dismissed. 3
#4. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XIV r. 2; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Mar 2012. The bench was R M BORDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.