http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  415 of 2008

PETITIONER: Rhodia Ltd. & Ors

RESPONDENT: Neon Laboratories Ltd

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & AFTAB ALAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.415 OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.14033 of 2007]

      Leave granted.         In a suit for specific performance of an agreement entered into between the appellan ts  and the respondent filed by the respondent, the Trial Court framed a preliminary issue  under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which is to the following effect :  

"Whether this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit."

       The said issue was answered in favour of the respondent.  Aggrieved thereby, the  appellants filed Civil Revision Application before the High Court of Bombay.  The High  Court, by its order dated 15th July 2002, set  aside the order of the Trial Court and  remanded the matter for consideration afresh.  The said order of the High Court was  challenged by the respondent in this Court.  This Court, by an order dated 18th November  2004  set aside the said order of the High Court and requested the High Court to dispose of  the Civil Revision Application at an early date after considering the relevant law including   the judgments, viz., Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003) 4  SCC 341 and Modi Roland Druckimachinan AG v. Multicolour Offset Ltd. & Anr. (2004)  7 SCC 447 and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance  with law.         By the impugned order dated 13th April 2007, the learned Single Judge, relying on hi s  own earlier decision in the case of Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Nigam  A. Mannan Beskar & Ors. 2006(4) Bom.C.R. 217, held that Section 9A of the CPC stands  repealed by reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 and Code of  Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 passed by the Parliament.           While deciding the Civil Revision Application, the learned Single Judge appears to h ave  lost sight of the fact that the aforementioned decision of the learned Single Judge had been   referred to a larger Bench of the High Court and has decided the application without  taking note thereof.  Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have filed this appeal.         We had issued a limited notice as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the   matter be listed after the decision of the larger Bench of the Bombay High Court.           We are now informed that the Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 29 th  November 2007, has taken the view that Section 9A remains on the Statute in the State of  Maharashtra.           In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the impugned order  is  set aside and the case is remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.   Since this matter is pending for the last eight years at the initial stage, we would request

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the  Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to post the matter for hearing and  disposal at an early date preferably within a period of six months.  Respondent would be at  liberty to file an application for disposal of the hazardous chemical lying with it.           Pending disposal of the Revision Application in the High Court, the proceedings in t he  suit shall remain stayed.         The appeal is allowed accordingly.