Harinder Guman vs Paramjit Singh Dhillon
2016 Latest Caselaw 600 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CS(OS) 373/2012

HARINDER GUMAN                                    ..... Plaintiff
                         Through:    None.


                         versus



PARAMJIT SINGH DHILLON                                  ..... Defendant
                  Through:           Mr. Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate
                                     with Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Advocate,
                                     Mr. Kanvpriya Tiwari, Advocate, Ms.
                                     Kritika Khanna, Advocate and Mr.
                                     Nishant Kulhari, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
                 ORDER

% 27.01.2016 I.A. No.1252/2016 (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC)

1. By this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the defendant prays for rejection of the suit plaint

on the ground that, out of the properties of which partition is sought, the

property which is situated in Delhi is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms

Act, 1954 and hence the suit is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act. With respect to the other properties which are agricultural

lands in Punjab, a similar provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 is

CS(OS) No.373/2012 page 1 of 5 relied upon. It is further pleaded in the application that as per Section 16

CPC, a suit for immovable property which is not situated at Delhi will not lie

in Delhi. It is also argued that defendant has already filed a suit against the

plaintiff which is filed in the competent Court at Punjab and hence this suit

cannot continue.

2. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC no doubt can be invoked

at any stage, but, I find the facts of the present case are not fit for invoking

the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for various reasons.

3. One reason is that issues in the present case were framed about

a year back on 30.1.2015 and thereafter parties had to lead evidence but

conveniently none of the parties are endeavouring to get evidence recorded

before the Local Commissioner.

4. The next reason is that so far as the suit with respect to the

agricultural land in Delhi being barred by relying upon Section 185 of the

Delhi Land Reforms Act is concerned, it needs to be noted that unless and

until there is an averment in the written statement that the land situated in

Tehsil Mehrauli has not been urbanized because of Section 507 of the Delhi

Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and hence continues to be rural land and

CS(OS) No.373/2012 page 2 of 5 thus the subject matter of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, this objection cannot

be looked into. It is only if the land which is situated at Tehsil Mehrauli is

not urbanized, the Delhi Land Reforms Act will continue to apply and once

there is no averment in the written statement of the non-urbanization because

no notification having been issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal

Corporation Act, the application seeking rejection of plaint with respect to

the land at Tehsil Mehrauli cannot be maintained.

5. I would also like to observe that object of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

is not to cause piecemeal decision of various issues and there cannot be

rejection of a plaint in part as per settled law. The subject suit is a suit for

partition for properties situated in Delhi as also in Punjab. It will be apposite

if the issues which have been framed are tried together including of

maintainability of the suit qua the properties either at Delhi or at Punjab

because even if the stand of the applicant/defendant in the application is

taken as correct, the same will not result in a complete rejection of the suit

plaint in view of the detailed issues framed on 30.1.2015 and which read as

under:-

"(i) Whether the present suit for partition can be adjudicated by this court being barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 & 158 of Punjab Land Reforms Act? OPD CS(OS) No.373/2012 page 3 of 5

(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? OPD

(iii) Whether the late father of the parties; Late (Retd) Col, Kultar Singh Dhillon executed a valid Agreement to Sell dated 5 th July, 1973 alongwith receipt, registered General Power of Attorney, and Will for 1200 Sq. yards out of an area of 4400 sq. yards in favour of the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP

(iv) Whether Shri Kultar Singh Dhillon, the father of the parties, executed any Will dated 22/08/2011, if so, its effect? OPD

(v) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition in the properties mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint? If so, what is the share of the parties? OPP

(vii) Relief."

6. The contention of the applicant/defendant relying upon Section

16 CPC that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction with respect to

properties in Punjab is misconceived because of Section 17 CPC which

states that where more than one court has jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at

any one court where any one immovable property is situated.

Applicant/defendant has overlooked the provision of Section 17 CPC.

7. So far as the issue that defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending in the Court at Punjab and therefore the trial of the present suit should not continue as per Section 10 CPC, it is noted that the defendant has not raised such issue/defence of Section 10 CPC framed when CS(OS) No.373/2012 page 4 of 5 issues were framed on 30.1.2015. Learned senior counsel for the

applicant/defendant also concedes that no defence/objection as per Section

10 CPC has been raised in the written statement filed by the defendant.

Clearly therefore application beyond the scope of written statement cannot

be looked into. So far as properties in Punjab are concerned, as already

stated above, if are taken piecemeal for decision of the issues in the suit, the

same will result in various decrees and therefore in the facts and

circumstances of the case, more so in view of the fact that there may be

issues with respect to interpretation of various provisions of the Punjab Land

Revenue Act, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it will be appropriate

that all the issues are decided together after leading of evidence, and at the

stage of final arguments.

8. Dismissed.

                                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 27, 2016
Ne


CS(OS) No.373/2012                                          page 5 of 5