JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides. 2. This revision application takes exception to the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exhibit 34 in Special Civil Suit No. 170 of 1999. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 has filed suit for specific performance of contract dated 7th November, 1994. When the applicant was served with the notice of the said suit, he appeared before the Court and on the second date, moved an application being Exhibit 34, praying that the preliminary issue be framed with regard to the question that the suit is barred by limitation. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the said application by concluding that issue of limitation raised by the applicant is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at this stage. 4. The aforesaid view has been assailed before this Court by the present revision application. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the objection raised on behalf of the applicant could be decided on the basis of the pleadings before the Court and even assuming that it was a mixed question of fact and law, it was obligatory on the Court to frame the said question as preliminary issue and decide the same before passing any further orders in the matter. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (B. Maniappan v. District Magistrate, District Collector, Vellore)1, 1999(1) Civil Law Journal page 723 to contend that the purport of the Maharashtra Amendment of section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been interpreted to mean that it is obligatory on the Court to frame preliminary issue and decide the same. According to this judgment, if the issue is a pure question of law, then the same be decided without recording evidence, but if it is a mixed question of law and fact, then parties should be permitted to adduce evidence and the same can be decided on the basis of the evidence before the Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that the fact that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be a question touching upon the jurisdiction of the Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that the fact that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be a question touching upon the jurisdiction of the Court. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deband)2, A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 2089 para 14 as well as (A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 907)3. In addition to the said decisions, reliance has been placed on the decision reported in (Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Ltd., Pune v. Bhujang Krishnaji Kohale)4, 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 652 . The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further contends that jurisdiction to entertain the suit will have to be given restricted meaning that the suit is either barred due to pecuniary jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiciton or barred by specific provisions of law. 6. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions that will have to be considered in this case. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads thus : "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.---The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred". There is Maharashtra amendment to section 9 by virtue of which section 9-A has been introduced, which reads thus : "9-A. Where at the hearing of application relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken, such issued to be decided by the Court as a preliminary issue.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if, at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a Receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), at the hearing of any such application, the Court may grant such interim relief as it may consider necessary, pending, determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiciton." 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed emphasis on the expression "excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred" appearing in section 9 as reproduced above. According to him, this is wide enough to encompass the situation with which we are concerned in this case. It is submitted that question of limitation would definitely be decisive to consider as to whether the Court could take cognizance of the suit. According to the learned Counsel, institution of the suit would be expressly barred by virtue of the provisions in the Limitation Act, which issue goes to the jurisdiction of the Court to try and decide the suit on merits. Moreover, this aspect of the matter can be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings before the Court; and in the given case, if it is a mixed question of law and fact, by permitting the parties to adduce the evidence in that behalf. 8. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 2089 in particular para 14 of the said decision, however, the issue examined in that case is whether the decree passed by the Civil Court in a suit which was barred by limitation, can be treated to be nullity or not. In that context, the Apex Court has observed that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit although filed beyond limitation. The same view is taken in the another decision of the Apex Court cited by the learned Counsel. In so far as the judgment of this Court relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent No. 1, reported in 1999(3) Maharashtra Law Journal 652, is concerned, it has taken a view that whether to try the issue as preliminary issue is a discretion vested in the Court and those issues which are mixed questioned of fact and law, cannot be tried as preliminary issues. The said decision of this Court is of Single Judge. On the other hand the decision relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant, reported in 1999(1) Civil Law Journal page 723 is that of Division Bench of this Court. With respect, the decision of the Division Bench has not been adverted to in the decision reported in 1999(3) Maharashtra Law Journal page 652, in which it is held that if the issue is a mixed question of fact and law, same cannot be tried as preliminary issue. The decision of the Division Bench has, however, taken a different view on the said aspect, as according to the Division Bench of this Court, the Maharashtra amendment by introducing section 9-A was made with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and, therefore, it was concluded in para 10 of the said decision that if the issue is a pure question of law, then it may be decided without recording evidence, but if it is a mixed question of law and fact, parties should be permitted to lead evidence on the facts of the case. The Division Bench has further held that the question of jurisdiction even if it is mixed question of law and fact, it is to be required to be decided first, having regard to the purport of section 9-A of the Code. In other words, the view taken by the Division Bench is that when the question of jurisdiction is raised, it is the duty of the Court to frame preliminary issue in that behalf and try and decide the same at the earliest opportunity before proceeding with the merits of the contentions raised in the suit. 9. Since the Division Bench of this Court has taken the aforesaid view, it is not open to contend that even when the question of jurisdiction is raised, the same need not be decided as preliminary issue. The view taken by the Court below that since it is a mixed question of law and facts, it cannot be decided at this stage, is, therefore, erroneous in view of the said decision. 10. The view taken by the Court below that since it is a mixed question of law and facts, it cannot be decided at this stage, is, therefore, erroneous in view of the said decision. 10. As aforesaid, the question whether the suit is barred by limitation, in my view, is a question which would expressly touch upon the issue of jurisdiction of the Court, for, if the suit is barred by limitation, the Court trying such a suit is precluded to pronounce upon the merits of the contentions. With a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court, it would be, therefore, essential that issue of jurisdiction in the context of suit being barred by limitation, is framed and decided in the first instance before proceeding to decide the suit on any other issue. If the said issue is answered against the plaintiff, then it would be wholly unnecessary for the trial Court to undertake the extensive exercise of recording of evidence with regard to the rival stand on the merits of the case. This would enable the Court to decide the proceedings with utmost dispatch and would subserve the purpose with which section 9-A has been introduced by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977. 11. In the circumstances, the revision would succeed and the order passed by the Court below dated 9th December, 1999, below Exhibit 34 in Special Civil Suit No. 170 of 1999, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation, and decide the same in accordance with law. 12. Rule made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----