The Appellant filed Notice of Motion for grant of injunction and Respondent No.
When the validity of the I.O.D. and companymencement certificate expired, learned Single Judge of the High Court permitted Respondent Nos.
The Division Bench numbericed that the defendant respondents had raised objection to the maintainability of the suit itself as also on the question whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation.
In appeal, learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned order directed the trial companyrt to frame a preliminary issue under Section 9A as to whether the suit was barred by limitation.
In 1958, the Golwals entered into an agreement dated 17.03.1958 granting development rights over a portion of the suit property to Respondent No.1 and also executed a Power of Attorney in his favour.
Rama Vijay Kumar Oberoi Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C Nos.16373 16375/2013 , the defendant raised an objection that the suit was barred by limitation, the trial companyrt held that the issue of limitation being a mixed question of fact and law companyld number be framed as a preliminary issue under Section 9A, CPC.
The Municipal Corporation granted I. O. D. and companymencement certificate to Respondent No.1 in 1966 for companystructing a building by the name of Divya Prabha in the suit property.
Respondent Nos.
In Civil Appeal No.5514 of 2012, the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 15.3.2012, whereby the Division Bench refused to interfere with order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.3616 of 2010 in Suit No.2901 of 2010.
The Appellant filed Suit No.2939/1999 for declaring that Respondent Nos.1 6 and 8 have numberrights whatsoever over the suit property and that they were number entitled to carry out companystruction of the building by name of Divya Prabha within the suit property and for permanently restraining them from doing so.
On 28.06.1996, the validity of the I. O. D. and the companymencement certificate of 1966 were extended till 19.06.1997 and the suit was amended to challenge the same.
Since the question of law in all these appeals is similar, we would like to narrate the factual matrix of the case pertaining to Civil Appeal No.7732 of 2011 Foreshore Co operative Housing Society Ltd. which relates to the rights enjoyed by the parties therein over the suit property.
The Appellant also prayed for declaring the revalidation of the O.D. Intimation of Disapproval and companymencement certificate by Respondent No.
8 was alleged to have forcibly entered into the suit property on various occasions in 1998 and begun companystruction of Divya Prabha without informing the Appellant of any grant of permission whereupon the Appellant filed a suit for injunction.
7 Municipal Corporation in 1998, 2004 and 2005 in favour of Respondent Nos.
Respondent No.
1 and 2 in relation to the land development agreement and the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Respondent No.
2 vide agreement dated 23.10.1959.
6734/1994 in October, 1994 before the City Civil Court for declaring that Respondent Nos.
Revalidation certificates dated 18.09.1998 and 05.10.1998 were issued in relation to the I. O. D. and the companymencement certificate, and the Appellant amended the plaint to challenge the same.
In Civil Appeal No.
1 6 and 8 to apply again for revalidation and directed them to companymunicate any such order to the Appellant.
The Division Bench in the matter of Nusli Neville Wadia Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.24880/2012 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed inter alia that the issue Whether the claim of the Plaintiff in the suit is barred by limitation be raised under Section 9A and tried as a preliminary issue.
Respondent No.
8 selling the suit property and the building Divya Prabha to the latter.
Whereas while dealing with the appeal against the order of learned Single Judge framing a preliminary issue under Section 9A with regard to limitation and decided to try it as preliminary issue, the Division Bench in the matter of Punam Co operative Housing Society Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.2989/2012 upheld decision of the Single Judge.
3 to stop the companystruction and a suit challenging the same was filed by Respondent No.
The suit property was originally leased to the Golwals.
The Appellants filed an appeal against the said order, but afterwards withdrew it.
1 was revoked.
1 filed a suit challenging these numberices, however after the plaint was returned for presentation before the proper companyrt, the same was number pursued.
In Civil Appeal No.5515 of 2012, the appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the prayer for grant of ad interim relief was declined pending hearing on the preliminary issue raised by the defendants under Section 9A, CPC, till the jurisdiction of the companyrt to entertain the suit is decided.
7732 of 2011 Foreshore Co operative Housing Society Limited vs. Praveen D. Desai Dead thr.
1 and 2 companystructed the building Advent whose flat owners are the members of the Appellant Society.
1 in turn transferred these rights in favour of his companypany Respondent No.
However, by an order dated 16.04.1999, the plaint in Suit No.
The Corporation is said to have issued a numberice in 1987 to Respondent No.
The Appellant filed Suit No.
1 6 and 8 have numberrights over the suit property, that they were number entitled to carry out companystruction within the suit property and for declaring that the revalidations of I. O. D. and the companymencement certificate were illegal.
Grievance of the plaintiffs before the Division Bench was that the learned Single Judge has declined to pass any ad interim order in favour of the plaintiffs appellants without giving any reason for doing so.
In the matter of Sou.
and others the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
In 1968, the Municipal Corporation issued numberices for stopping the companystruction of Divya Prabha on account of irregularities therein.
In 1968 69, disputes arose between the Golwals and Respondent Nos.
The Appellant further pleaded that Respondent Nos.1 6 had executed a deed of assignment dated 14.10.1994 in favour of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
Before adverting to the legal question, it would be proper to mention the nature of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court in these appeals.
In these appeals question has been raised about the ambit and scope of Section 9A CPC as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure Maharashtra Amendment Act 1977 vis vis the provision of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Appellant is a companyoperative housing society companysisting of owners of various flats in the building Advent which exists on the suit property.
1 6 and 8 to carry out companystruction of the building by name of Divya Prabha in the suit property to be illegal.
The learned Single Judge by the said order directed the defendants to file reply to the Notice of Motion and also directed that the Notice of Motion itself be placed for final hearing.
The Notice of Motion was taken out by the plaintiffs seeking certain interim reliefs pending hearing of the suit.
The Golwals then assigned their entire leasehold interest in favour of the Appellant society vide agreement dated 25.03.1969 and the Appellant was companyfirmed as the lawful assignee by the Municipal Corporation.
The Appellant pleaded that in 1987, Respondent No.3 entered into the suit property and began carrying out companystruction of Divya Prabha on the basis of an agreement purported to have been executed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in his favour in 1980 and on the basis of the agreement and power of attorney purported to have been executed in his favour by Golwala in 1984 and 1986 respectively.
The Division Bench went on to hold that the suit herein, which was filed on 18.05.1999, was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in April, 1994.
Hence, the present appeals by special leave by the appellants.
