JUDGMENT 1. Since the above Petitions involve identical facts and also a identical challenge, they are clubbed together and heard. Rule in all the above petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition No.6383 of 2012 is treated as the lead matter. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by which order application Exhibit 33, (similar applications in other matters) came to be allowed and a preliminary issue to the following effect was framed viz. “Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?” 3. The Petitioner abovenamed is the original Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.425 of 2011 filed by him against the Respondents to the above petition. The said suit has been filed for recovery of money against the Respondents. In so far as Special Civil Suit No.425/2011 is concerned, the amount claimed is an amount of Rs.1,62,74,762/- and an amount is also claimed on account of paintings. The amounts claimed are different in each of the suits as also the amounts on account of the paintings. 4. In the said suits, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘the CPC’) for directing the Defendants for depositing the amount claimed in the suits in the Court. The said applications were numbered as Exhibit 5. The said applications were filed on 10.10.2011. Upon the said applications being filed, the Defendants filed an application which was numbered as Exhibit 33 raising a preliminary issue of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit on the point of limitation. The Defendants by adverting to the dates which have been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said application contended that the suits as filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of the amount against the Defendants was beyond limitation. The Trial Court considered the said application Exhibit 33 filed by the Defendants for framing of preliminary issue and having regard to the settled position in law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 [1] Bom. C.R.107, in the matter of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny & Anr. The Trial Court considered the said application Exhibit 33 filed by the Defendants for framing of preliminary issue and having regard to the settled position in law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 [1] Bom. C.R.107, in the matter of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny & Anr. allowed the said application and framed the preliminary issue which has been adverted to hereinabove. 5. The Trial Court held that the application filed by the Plaintiff Exhibit 5 invoking order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC was an application for interim reliefs and therefore, once an issue of jurisdiction was raised it was mandatory for it to consider framing of the said issue of jurisdiction. As indicated above, it is the said order which is impugned in the present petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the application filed invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC would not be an application which is contemplated under Section 9A of the CPC, so as to allow the Defendants to file an application for framing of a preliminary issue. The learned counsel would rely upon Section 9A of the CPC to contend that an application for directing the Defendants to deposit the amount claimed in the suit in the Court is not akin to the applications which are contemplated in the said Section 9A of the CPC. The learned counsel would contend that if the Plaintiff's considering the nature of the suit filed, would not be entitled to file an application for interim relief, the Defendants, in turn, could not then file an application invoking Section 9A of the CPC. 7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents in each of the above petitions would contend that the application filed invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC of the Plaintiffs is in fact an application for an interlocutory order. The learned Senior Counsel would try to substantiate the said submission by referring to Order XXXIX of the CPC which is in two parts. The first part relates to injunctions and the second part relates to interlocutory orders. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the application filed by the Plaintiff is therefore, akin to an application which has been contemplated in Section 9A of the CPC. 8. The first part relates to injunctions and the second part relates to interlocutory orders. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the application filed by the Plaintiff is therefore, akin to an application which has been contemplated in Section 9A of the CPC. 8. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that it is not as if the Plaintiff cannot apply for interim relief, the fact whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to interim relief or not is another matter. But it is not open for the Plaintiff to contend since an application for interim relief cannot be filed considering the nature of the suit, the Defendants are disentitled to file an application invoking Section 9A of the CPC. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. The question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by the Plaintiff by invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC can be said to be an application, which is covered by Section 9A of the CPC so as to enable the Defendants to file an application for framing of a preliminary issue. For the said answer, Section 9A of the CPC would have be looked at. The same is therefore reproduced hereinunder: "9A. Where at the hearing of application relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken such issue 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, on objection to 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 for 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. 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 jurisdiction". Section 9A therefore postulates a situation, that if at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim reliefs, whether by stay, injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise made in any suit an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine it at the hearing of such application the issue as to jurisdiction. 10. The applications which have been contemplated under Section 9A of the CPC are the applications for stay, injunction, appointment of a Receiver or otherwise. The application in the instant case is an application filed by the Plaintiff invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC. Order XXXIX, as can be seen, is in two parts. Rule 1 to 5 are in part one which covers injunctions and Rules 6 to 10 are in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, the application filed by the Plaintiff as per Order XXXIX is for an interlocutory order of directing the Defendants to deposit the amount claimed in the suit in the Court. The said application would therefore be an application which is akin to the application for stay, injunction, appointment of Receiver. The use of the word “or otherwise” in the said Section 9A of the CPC would denote an application of a similar kind as stay, injunction for an appointment of a Receiver if the principle of ejusdemgeneris is to be applied. Since the instant application under Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC in terms of Order XXXIX is an application for an interlocutory order pending the suit, applying the principle of ejusdemgeneris, the same would be akin to an application for stay, injunction or appointment of Court Receiver which is contemplated and would therefore be covered by the phrase “or otherwise”. The Defendants were therefore entitled to invoke Section 9A and file an application questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit on the ground of limitation. 11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on the unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.9220/2012 on 14.12.2012 is misplaced in view of the fact in the said case an application for discovery and inspection was made by the Plaintiffs and it is on account of the said fact that the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the same would not be covered by the word ‘otherwise’ appearing in Section 9A of the CPC. 12. In the light of the judgment in Meher Singh’s case which has been referred to by the Trial Court, it was mandatory for the Trial Court to frame the said preliminary issue before considering the application filed by the Plaintiff invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 10 of the CPC. In the light of the mandatory nature of Section 9A of the CPC, as held by the Apex Court, as well as by this Court in number of judgments which have been referred to by the Trial Court, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court of allowing the application Exhibit 33 filed by the Defendants and framing the preliminary issue cannot be faulted with. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is therefore made out. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule in all the above petitions stands discharged with no order as to costs.