Punjab-Haryana High Court
Beant Kumar vs Shree Sanatam Dharam Sabha Regd on 23 October, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
115 CR-3126-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 23.10.2024
BEANT KUMAR .... Petitioner
VERSUS
SHREE SANATAN DHARAM SABHA (REGD.) .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Mona Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure
P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda whereby the
application filed for framing an issue regarding bar of jurisdiction has partly
been allowed inasmuch as though the said issue has been framed, however,
the same has not been treated as a preliminary issue.
2. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that
though an issue regarding bar of jurisdiction has been framed by the learned
Rent Controller concerned, however, the same has not been treated as a
preliminary issue. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the
tenant-petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sukhbiri Devi & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors. [2022
(4) RCR (Civil) 419].
3. Heard.
115 CR-3126-2024 (O&M) -2-
4. In the present case the application was filed for framing of an
issue regarding bar of jurisdiction and further for treating the same as a
preliminary issue after amendment to the written statement was permitted
and the tenant-petitioner was allowed to raise the legal objection regarding
bar of jurisdiction. The issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller
concerned on 10.08.2017. Thereafter the landlord-respondent herein
examined four witnesses and closed his evidence. On 22.08.2023 the learned
Rent Controller concerned allowed the application for amendment to the
written statement for adding the legal objection regarding jurisdiction of
Rent Tribunal. Thereafter the learned Rent Controller vide the impugned
order allowed the application to the extent that the additional issue regarding
bar of jurisdiction was framed as issue No.5 by re-casting the issues,
however, since the evidence of the landlord-respondent had already been
closed, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the plea for treating the said
issue as a preliminary issue.
5. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the tenant-
petitioner in the case of Sukhbiri Devi (supra) would be of no help
inasmuch as the said judgment relates to the issue of limitation and that it
can be framed as a preliminary issue when it is to be decided on admitted
facts. In the present case the issue is regarding jurisdiction and since the
landlord-respondent has already led his evidence, the learned Rent
Controller has rightly held that the said issue cannot be treated as a
preliminary issue.
115 CR-3126-2024 (O&M) -3-
6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore V/s The State of
Karnataka & Ors. [2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 497] has held as under :
'8.4 Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the
issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to
pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such
it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the
issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather
than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the
judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would
increase the burden on the appellate court and in many
cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be
erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and
no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will
have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh
decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts
have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and
render findings and the judgment on all the issues
involved'.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition. The petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
23.10.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
