Summary
Applying the larger Bench ruling in Nusli Veville Wadia, the Court set aside conflicting High Court decisions that had determined limitation as a preliminary issue under Maharashtra’s Section 9A CPC. The share-title suit was directed to restart from framing of issues, with limitation considered alongside the other issues. Neither the merits of the competing title claims nor the correct limitation outcome was decided.
Issues
- Whether the preliminary limitation determinations could survive the interpretation of Section 9A in Nusli Veville Wadia.
- How the underlying suit and pending applications should proceed.
Held
- The saving provision following deletion of Section 9A did not enlarge the permissible scope of preliminary adjudication under that section. The larger Bench interpretation governed the pending dispute. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Both High Court determinations on limitation as a preliminary issue had to be set aside. Limitation must be decided with the other issues in the suit, independently of observations in either judgment. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The suit was to proceed afresh from framing of issues. The plaintiff could seek consideration of pending applications on their merits, and disposal of the suit was requested preferably within eighteen months. No opinion was expressed on the merits. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal and connected special leave petition disposed of. Both High Court orders were set aside; the suit must proceed afresh from framing of issues, with limitation decided alongside other issues and pending applications considered independently. Expeditious disposal requested, preferably within eighteen months.