Punjab-Haryana High Court
Guraditta Singh And Another vs Mewa Singh And Others on 24 January, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011028
CR-499-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(123)
CR-499-2025
Date of Decision: - 24.01.2025
Guraditta Singh @ Guranditta Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Mewa Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2024
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda,
whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the
present case, the civil suit was barred by the provisions of Section 158(2)
(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, inasmuch as, the challenge was
to the partition proceedings. It is further submitted that the said objection
was specifically taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and
has been perversely dealt with by the trial Court and the impugned order
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011028
deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed and the plaint deserves to be
rejected.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order has been
rightly passed and the present revision petition, being meritless, deserves
to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.
4. It is not in dispute that in the civil suit, the
plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 have challenged the partition proceedings
primarily on the ground that the same are in violation of the principles of
natural justice and the proceedings have been carried out behind their
back without affording any opportunity to the respondents No.1 to
7/plaintiffs of being heard and that they were wrongly proceeded against
ex parte. It is further specifically averred in the plaint that the basic
principles of natural justice have been ignored by the revenue authorities
in finalizing the partition proceedings. On the aspect of there being
violation of principles of natural justice and no due service, it has been
averred that the plaintiffs were not properly served with the summons
either through the ordinary process, registered cover or otherwise and
even no Mustri Munadi had been effected in the village, rather a false
report regarding the Mustri had been prepared. It was specifically stated
in paragraph 6 of the plaint that it was only a few days prior to the date of
the suit that plaintiffs learnt about the said partition proceedings, when
the present petitioners made efforts to interfere in the peaceful possession
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011028
of the plaintiffs.
5. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court after observing that when a
challenge is made to the partition proceedings on the ground of violation
of principles of natural justice, then, the same cannot be stated to be hit by
the provisions of Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act
as the question as to whether the plaintiffs were duly served or the entire
proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice is a
question which can be considered by the Civil Court.
6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated
19.07.2023 passed in Civil Revision No.6186 of 2018 titled as "Joginder
Singh Vs. Pritam Singh and others", in similar circumstances, wherein
challenge was made to the partition proceeding and an objection was
raised with respect to it being barred under Section 158(2) (xviii) of the
Punjab Land Revenue Act, it had been observed that when there is
violation of the principles of natural justice, then the same is one of the
grounds on which the Civil Court can exercise its jurisdiction. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
3. The petitioner-defendant in the suit claims that the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 158(2) XVIII of
the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the
'1887 Act'). It is submitted that an order of partition of the property
passed by the competent authority is sought to be challenged by filing
the civil suit, is not permissible.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011028
7. The test which is required to be applied to reject the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
is required to be construed very narrowly. Once a plaint is rejected,
the suit comes to an end. In this situation unless the Court is in a
position to record a categoric finding that the suit is not maintainable
before the Civil Court, the plaint should not be rejected. Violation of
principles of natural justice is one of the ground on which the suit
in the Civil Court can be filed to challenge the orders passed by the
authorities under the Act........."
7. It is a matter of settled law that for the purpose of
considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the
pleadings in the plaint has to be seen and in the present case, as per the
pleadings in the plaint, the orders passed in the partition proceedings were
violative of the principles of natural justice and thus, it cannot be said that
the Civil Court is barred from exercising its jurisdiction. Moreover, the
trial Court has rightly observed that the question as to whether there was a
violation of principles of natural justice is a disputed question of fact
which would be finally adjudicated during the course of trial.
8. Additionally, it would be relevant to note that in the suit, the
prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs has also been made
and it also been stated that the plaintiffs have been given 9 marlas of land
less than their shares in spite of the fact that there are registered sale
deeds in favour of the plaintiffs which are several decades old and no
challenge has been made to the said sale deeds. It is averred that the
question of title has arisen and on the said aspect also the civil suit is
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011028
maintainable.
9. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and
the present revision petition, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
10. Needless to say that the observations made by this Court
would not be construed as a final expression on the merits of the case and
the same are only made for the purpose of adjudication of the present
revision petition.
( VIKAS BAHL )
January 24, 2025 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
5 of 5
