IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 31982-31983 OF 2013

NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA Petitioner(s)

Digitally signed by

Date: 2018.12.15 10:13:47 IST Reason:

VERSUS

IVORY PROPERTIES & HOTELS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2856 OF 2015

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3396 OF 2015

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 22438 OF 2015

O R D E R

It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) that Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stands deleted by Maharashtra Act 61 of 2018 on 29.10.2018. However, there is a challenge made to the deletion of Section 9A by Maharashtra Ordinance No. 18 of 2018 and the writ petition challenging the validity of the deletion of Section 9A will be amended to challenge the deletion of Section 9A by way of Maharashtra Act 61 of 2018. It is submitted that JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Signature Not Verified

ordinance has been substituted by the Act and the amendment is going to be made in the pending petition.

It is also pointed out that the Notice of Motion has been taken out in the Suit, bearing No. 414 of 2008 which is pending and all proceedings have been stayed by an order dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Court in the present Special Leave Petition i.e. SLP (C) No. 31982-83 of 2013.

It was rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel that challenge to Section 9A has been rendered infructuous at this stage. In case the deletion is set aside, only in that case, the question would arise as to the interpretation of Section 9A whether the expression 'jurisdiction' includes the question of limitation also. At this stage, since the deletion of Section 9A has already been made, these petitions are rendered infructuous. In case any adverse order is passed in the pending matter, it would be open to the petitioner(s) to revive these petitions.

Hence, the interim order of stay passed in these matters stands vacated.

In view of the above, nothing further survives in these matters, the same are, accordingly, disposed of.

However, in case of any necessity, it will be open to the petitioner(s) to make a request before this Court for revival of the matter(s).

2

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

.......................J. [ ARUN MISHRA ] .......................J. [ VINEET SARAN ] .......................J. [ M. R. SHAH ]

New Delhi; December 12, 2018.

ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31982- 31983/2013

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-09-2013 in SN No. 414/2008 19-09-2013 in AN No. 414/2008 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

IVORY PROPERTIES & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

R.P.(C) No. 2856/2015 In C.A. No. 3396/2015 (III) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2016)

SLP(C) No. 22438/2015 (IX)

Date : 12-12-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

	For Petitioner(s)	Mr. F. S. Nariman, Sr. Adv.
		Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv.
		Mr. R. N. Karanjawala, Adv.
		Mrs. Nandini Gore, Adv.
		Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Adv.
		Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Adv.
		Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv.
		Mrs. Manik Karajawala, Adv.
		Ms. Khushboo Bari, Adv.
		For M/S. Karanjawala & Co.

Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR

For Respondent(s) Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Roohina Dua, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.

Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR

Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR Ms. Purnima Bhat, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) that Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stands deleted by Maharashtra Act 61 of 2018 on 29.10.2018. However, there is a challenge made to the deletion of Section 9A by Maharashtra Ordinance No. 18 of 2018 and the writ petition challenging the validity of the deletion of Section 9A will be amended to challenge the deletion of Section 9A by way of Maharashtra Act 61 of 2018. It is submitted that ordinance has been substituted by the Act and the amendment is going to be made in the pending petition.

It is also pointed out that the Notice of Motion has been taken out in the Suit, bearing No. 414 of 2008 which is pending and all proceedings have been stayed by an order dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Court in the present Special Leave Petition i.e. SLP (C) No. 31982-83 of 2013.

It was rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel that challenge to Section 9A has been rendered infructuous at this stage. In case the deletion is set aside, only in that case, the question would arise as to the interpretation of Section 9A whether the expression 'jurisdiction' includes the question of limitation

5

also. At this stage, since the deletion of Section 9A has already been made, these petitions are rendered infructuous. In case any adverse order is passed in the pending matter, it would be open to the petitioner(s) to revive these petitions.

Hence, the interim order of stay passed in these matters stands vacated.

In view of the above, nothing further survives in these matters, the same are, accordingly, disposed of.

However, in case of any necessity, it will be open to the petitioner(s) to make a request before this Court for revival of the matter(s).

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER