JUDGMENT : S.J. Kathawalla, J. The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit alleging that the Defendant is guilty of infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark and is also guilty of passing off its goods as that of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also taken out a Notice of Motion seeking interim reliefs against the Defendant. The Defendant has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the above Suit and the said Suit is barred by the law of limitation. 2. In view thereof, this Court by its order dated 13th March, 2013, has framed the following issues as preliminary issues u/s 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: (i) whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the above Suit? and (ii) whether the Suit is barred by the law of limitation? The Court has directed the Plaintiff to file its Affidavit of Evidence, Affidavit of Documents and Compilation of Documents. 3. It is submitted by the Defendant that the Affidavit of Documents, so directed to be filed by this Court, must make a full disclosure on oath of all the documents which are and have been in the Plaintiff's possession or power relating to any matter in question in the Suit. On the other hand, the Plaintiff contends that such disclosure be limited to documents in relation only to the preliminary issues, namely, jurisdiction and limitation. 4. The sum and substance of the Defendant's arguments is this: (i) The hearing of the preliminary issue u/s 9A is part of the trial of the Suit, the only distinguishing feature being that the hearing of preliminary issues in such a case is preponed and its trial is conducted at an earlier stage of the Suit; (ii) All provisions applicable to the trial of the Suit would equally apply whilst hearing the preliminary issue; (iii) Accordingly, having regard to Section 30 and Order XI Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, the party is required to disclose on oath all documents which are or have been in its possession or power, relating to any matter in question in the Suit. Form No. 5 of Appendix "C" makes it apparent that the disclosure has to be full, complete and truthful and in relation to all matters in question in the Suit, and not restricted to any particular issue; (iv) In the instant case, the Court has directed the Plaintiff to file its affidavit of documents. There is no qualification on the contents of the affidavit and the same cannot be limited to documents only in relation to the preliminary issues. (v) Any other interpretation would severely prejudice and/or impair the Defendant's right to seek complete candour and full and complete disclosure of documents from the Plaintiff. 5. In the first place, as explained by the Division Bench of this court in Jagshi K. Shah Vs. M/s. Shaan Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 3 BomCR 770 , the main reason behind the provision of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that if the court comes to a finding that it does not have jurisdiction vested in it in law, then no further inquiry is needed and this saves a lot of valuable judicial time. 6. As noted by the Division Bench of this court in Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny and Another, (1998) 4 ALLMR 536, Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a departure from the ordinary procedure prescribed for trial under Order XIV Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which enables decision on a preliminary issue at an earlier stage, thereby crystallizing the rights of the parties at that stage itself. For determination of such preliminary issue, which may be a mixed question of law and facts, the parties may be required to lead oral and documentary evidence, as that issue is required to be tried and adjudicated finally by the court. Though this procedure requires piecemeal determination of the Suit, the same cannot be avoided because of the mandate of Section 9A. 7. Such being the rationale behind and effect of the provisions of Section 9A, the Plaintiff cannot be expected or required to file its evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of its entire case on merits, particularly in answer to the issues which have not even been framed. 7. Such being the rationale behind and effect of the provisions of Section 9A, the Plaintiff cannot be expected or required to file its evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of its entire case on merits, particularly in answer to the issues which have not even been framed. The Plaintiff in this case is quite right in submitting that the rationale behind Section 9A clearly implies that if the Plaintiff fails to prove that the court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit in the first place, the question of filing other documentary and oral evidence in support of the Plaintiff's case on merits does not arise at all. After all, by its very nature and purpose, Section 9A contemplates hearing of the case, including both documentary and oral evidence, piecemeal i.e. at the stage of Section 9A only on preliminary issues and later, if the preliminary issues are held in favour of the Plaintiff, on all other issues on merits. 8. In fact, Counsel for the Defendant, in the course of his submissions, has conceded that the Plaintiff could lead evidence in two stages, one during the stage of recording evidence on the preliminary issue and the other during recording of evidence on all other issues on merits. It is difficult to see why such a concession should relate only to oral evidence and not documentary evidence. If oral evidence can be led in two stages, so can documentary evidence be led in two stages. Filing of an affidavit of documents is nothing but part of the process of leading documentary evidence at the trial of a Suit. 9. In fact, the scheme of the CPC in this behalf, namely, Section 30 and Order XI Rules 12 and 13, clearly supports this position. Section 30 provides for the Court's discretion to make orders regarding, inter alia, discovery of documents subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. What is prescribed by the rules is contained in Order XI Rules 12 and 13. Section 30 provides for the Court's discretion to make orders regarding, inter alia, discovery of documents subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. What is prescribed by the rules is contained in Order XI Rules 12 and 13. Rule 12 provides for the power of the court: (a) to refuse such discovery, if the same is not necessary, or (b) to refuse such discovery, or adjourn the application, if such discovery is not necessary at that stage of the Suit, or (c) make such order either generally or limited to certain classes of documents as it may, in its discretion, deem fit. Rule 13 requires affidavit in response to an order in Rule 12 to contain prescribed details. A bare reading of these provisions clearly suggests that it is possible, or indeed advisable in a given case, to defer discovery of documents to a later stage of the Suit or to limit such discovery to a particular class of documents. A particular class of documents could certainly include 'documents relatable to a preliminary issue'. 10. The judgments of Kranti Mohan Guruprasad Mebra and Another Vs. Fatehchand Vasuram Behal, AIR 1982 Bom 263 and Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur, (1972) 2 SCC 427 and Gobinda Mohun Roy Vs. Magneram Bangur and Co., AIR 1940 Cal 331 are of no assistance to the Defendant. 11. In the case of M.L. Sethna Vs. R.P. Kapur, the subject matter of the Suit was recovery of damages. The application for discovery was made in respect of the limited issue, namely, whether the Plaintiff was a pauper. The Supreme Court, in this context, held that "affidavit of documents shall set forth all the documents, which are or have been in his possession or power relating to the matter in question ...."This judgment, far from supporting the Defendant, in fact suggests that the documents relevant to the matter in question or controversy need to be disclosed. 12. In the case of Kranti Mohan Vs. Fatechand, this court held that determination of a preliminary issue even at the stage of Section 9A "would be on the consideration of all aspects in which the issue is enveloped". The court meant all aspects concerning the preliminary issue and certainly not all aspects concerning all issues arising in the Suit. 13. The case of Gobinda Mohan Vs. Magneram Bangur does not take the matter any further. The court meant all aspects concerning the preliminary issue and certainly not all aspects concerning all issues arising in the Suit. 13. The case of Gobinda Mohan Vs. Magneram Bangur does not take the matter any further. It simply states that discovery of all documents relating to the matter in question must be made, if the same is ordered on an application for discovery of such documents which have any bearing on the matter in dispute. 14. It is difficult to see how the Defendant can claim to be prejudiced or impaired in his right to seek complete candour or full and complete disclosure of documents, if such discovery is not ordered at this stage. All documents relevant to the preliminary issue will have to be discovered, and evidence led at this stage. If the trial has to proceed to the next stage, the Plaintiff will have to discover, and lead evidence of all other documents which are relevant to the merits of the case, and the Defendant will definitely have the advantage of having an affidavit of such documents before the trial of the other issues, after they are framed. In the circumstances I hold that at this stage the Plaintiff is required to make disclosure of documents limited in relation only to the preliminary issues, namely, jurisdiction and limitation.