Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that it needs to be clarified and reiterated that the powers of the Court conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are mandatory in nature and can be exercised at any stage of the suit but before the conclusion of the trial.
This order shall dispose of two revision petitions. Before the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, the first petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed for setting aside of the order dated 04.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Charkhi Dadri, whereby, it dismissed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the petitioner/defendant – Gram Panchayat, seeking rejection of plaint on account of lack of jurisdiction. The second petition was filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order 23.02.2018 vide which the injunction application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was allowed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Charkhi Dadri and also seeking setting aside of the order whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order was dismissed, by the learned Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri.
The counsel for the defendant- Gram Panchayat (petitioner herein) submitted that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for title under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for declaring them as owners in possession of the suit land before the Court of Collector, Charkhi Dadri. During the pendency of the suit plaintiffs also filed the civil suit in question before the Trial Court for restraining the defendant from dispossessing or interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property.
The Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Court below committed a patent illegality in failing to appreciate that since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was specifically barred under Section 13 of the Act, the suit in question was not maintainable. He further submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in observing that since the trial was at the stage of evidence, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand has vehemently disputed the submissions made by the counsel opposite by urging that the plaintiffs have been in physical possession of the suit land since the year 1928. He submits that the suit land has been wrongly mutated in the name of the defendant without even issuing any notice to them. Learned counsel submits that the suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants was not barred under Section 13 of the Act, more so, when they had already filed a suit for the title before the Court of the Collector. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the civil suit in question was maintainable as there was no other remedy available to the plaintiffs to restrain the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession.
At the very outset, the Court held that the outset, the High Court held that in order to decide a dispute under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction to decide any dispute as to whether any right, title or interest in any land or immovable property vests in the Gram Panchayat or not, would exclusively lie with the Collector, to the exclusion of the Civil Court.
Adverting to the case in hand, the Court opined that the relief claimed in the civil suit involves the adjudication of rights of the parties over the suit property, hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the matter would, therefore, be barred under Section 13 of the Act
Coming next to the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that there was no alternative remedy available to them for restraining the defendants, is devoid of any merit, the Court held that Section 13-A(2) of the Act provides for deciding the suits under Section 13-A(1) in the same manner, as is provided for, in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
“Hence, the Collector also does have all such incidental powers to decide the suit effectively and also has the powers to grant injunction”, held the Court.
In view of above, it was held that the Court held that the plaintiffs would be at liberty to avail of the alternative remedies before the appropriate Forum/Collector under the provisions of the Act, if so advised.
Without any hesitation, Court held,
“This Court has no hesitation to hold that the trial Court has also erred in observing that since the evidence had commenced, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was not maintainable.”
As a sequel to the above, more so, since the question of the right of the parties over suit property was involved, the impugned orders were set aside and the revision petitions were accordingly allowed.
Case Name: Gram Panchayat Hansawas Khurd v. Dhan Singh and Others
Picture Source :
