In Brief
In this reference case, the Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction to entertain a suit differs from exercise of jurisdiction. The court held that Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to the court's inherent lack of jurisdiction, not to limitation periods. Therefore, trial courts cannot frame limitation as a preliminary issue under Section 9A. The judgment distinguished between existence of jurisdiction and its exercise, stating that a court's lack of jurisdiction is determined by whether its judgment can be attacked in collateral proceedings. The amendment preserving pending Section 9A issues does not change what constitutes a valid preliminary issue. The matter was remanded for consideration on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.