JUDGMENT - DESHMUKH B.N., C.J.: - Notice before admission was issued in this Appeal, and we have admitted the Appeal today. By consent, the Appeal is called on Board for final hearing. 2. We find that the plaintiffs have asked for interim relief in this case, and the first defendants have objected to the jurisdiction of the Court in two different ways. They say that a Suit is bad without a proper service under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the other objection being that the subject-matter of the dispute falls under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1950, and, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. The only corollary was that the Court cannot grant interim relief, as there was no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. . 3. It may be noted, as a matter of fact that an absolute injunction was sought in the first instance. While actually granting the interim relief at the hearing for interim relief, the plaint was amended and a limited injunction not to disturb the plaintiffs, except in due course of law, was sought for. That was granted by the trial Court. Against that order, the defendants carried an Appeal to this Court, being Appeal No. 258 of 1977 from order:. It was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court. 4. The learned trial Judge, since objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court at the stage of granting the interim relief, framed issues in that behalf, as is obligatory under the Maharashtra amendment to the Civil Procedure Code in section 9-A, added by the Amending Act, No. 25 of 1970. This Amendment directs that if an objection is raised as to the jurisdiction of a Court at the stage of granting of interim relief, the Court shall proceed to determine, at the hearing of such application, the issue as to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting interim relief. It further directs that any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible, and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit. It is, therefore, clear that the issue as to jurisdiction must be decided as a preliminary issue while granting an interim relief. It further directs that any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible, and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit. It is, therefore, clear that the issue as to jurisdiction must be decided as a preliminary issue while granting an interim relief. That was so done by the trial Court. In the Appeal Court, the learned single Judge passed an order dated 17th August, 1979, by which he set aside the findings of the Trial Court on the preliminary issues, which findings were in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by this order of setting aside the findings on preliminary issues, while maintaining the limited interim relief, the plaintiffs have filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having read the provisions of section 9 A of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Maharashtra Amending Act No.25 of 1970, and after hearing the counsel on either side, we are satisfied that the new procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Amending Act is imperative and nobody has a choice to conduct the proceedings in the suit contrary to the directions of the Legislature. 6. It is true that the interim relief now sought may appear to be a limited one. However, the language of section 9-A does not take care of either limited relief or absolute relief as the basis for investigating the objections raised relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. If the jurisdiction of the Court is challenged at the stage of interim relief, although that inrerim relief may be granted, the proper procedure prescribed has got to be followed. In the circumstances, the trial Court was right in deciding the preliminary issues. The Appeal Court could not, therefore, set aside these findings, unless the parties have been heard on the merits. As the appeal has not been disposed of on merits but has been disposed of on the short ground relating to preliminary issues that it was not necessary to finally decide the issues relating to jurisdiction. We are of the view that this was a course not permissible to the learned single Judge under the Law. As the appeal has not been disposed of on merits but has been disposed of on the short ground relating to preliminary issues that it was not necessary to finally decide the issues relating to jurisdiction. We are of the view that this was a course not permissible to the learned single Judge under the Law. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and restore the appeal from order to file of the Court, and further direct that the appeal shall be placed before the appropriate learned single Judge for hearing and disposal according to law, bearing in mind the provisions of section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Maharashtra Amending Act No. 25 of 1970. Since the matter is yet to be heard r and decided on merits, the costs of this appeal shall be at the discretion of the learned single Judge. Liberty to apply to the learned single Judge for the expeditious hearing of the appeal. Appeal allowed. -----