2008 INSC 0086
                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   Rhodia Ltd. & Ors

                                            Vs.

                   Neon Laboratories Ltd

                   C.A.No.415 of 2008

                   (Ashok Bhan and Aftab Alam,JJ.)

                      15.01.2008

                      ORDER

[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.14033 of 2007]

1. Leave granted.

2. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement entered into between the appellants 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."

3. The said issue was answered in favor 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. Ltd1. and Modi Roland Druckimachinan AG v.
Multicolour Offset Ltd. & Anr2. and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh
decision in accordance with law.

4. By the impugned order dated 13th April 2007, the learned Single Judge, relying on his
own earlier decision in the case of Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Nigam A.
Mannan Beskar & Ors3. held that Section 9A of the CPC stands repealed by reason of the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 have 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

                   1                                                SpotLaw
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 29th November 2007, has taken the view that Section 9A remains on the Statute
in the State of Maharashtra.

5. 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 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 the suit shall remain stayed.

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Judgment Referred.

1(2003) 4 SCC 0341
2(2004) 7 SCC 0447
3(2006) 4 Bom.C.R. 0217

2  SpotLaw