Harnek Singh Josan vs Shweta Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 11081 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 94/2022

Harnek Singh Josan S/o Shri Jeet Singh Josan, Aged About 46 Years, B/c Kamboj Sikh, R/o House No. 396, Homeland City, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus Shweta Singh W/o Birendra Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o 396, Homeland City, Sri Ganganagar Through Power Of Attorney Holder Ajay Pal Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o 2/62, Shankar Colony, Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Ramavtar Singh
                                  Mr. Sumer Singh Gour
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
                                  by Mr. Sachin Saraswat


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                 Judgment / Order
Reserved on :                        02/08/2022
Pronounced on:                       31.08.2022


     In   this    revision       petition,    the    petitioner-defendant      has

challenged the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by Additional Civil

Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in CO No.29/2017: Smt Shweta Singh

Vs Harnek Singh, whereby the application filed by petitioner-

defendant under Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') was dismissed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent-

plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of petitioner-defendant from House

No.396, Homeland City, Sriganganagar, owned by respondent-

plaintiff before Learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Sriganganagar

stating inter alia that the ground floor of the said house was given

(2 of 4) [CR-94/2022]

on a monthly rent of ₹4,000 to the petitioner-defendant. The rent

was increased to ₹5,500 from June, 2014. The petitioner-

defendant despite repeated demands had not deposited the rent

from January 2015, therefore, a mandatory order for eviction of

petitioner-defendant may be passed and he may be directed to

pay the due rent. The petitioner-defendant in the written

statement stated that no rent is due, per contra, he had advanced

a sum of ₹5,00,000 to the respondent-plaintiff and as per the

assurance given by the respondent-plaintiff, the rent was to be

adjusted from the principal amount advanced and the interest

accruing thereupon.

Admittedly in the present case, the trial court has framed

issues and issue No.4 pertains to the jurisdiction of the court to

try and decide the present eviction suit. The issue No.4 framed by

the trial court reads as under:

"4. आया वाद सुनने का माननीय न्यायालय को क्षेत्राधिकार व श्रवणाधिकार नही है ?"

After framing of the issues, an application under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendant stating inter alia

that the suit property is situated in Gram Panchayat No.4 ML, and

therefore, as per the Second Schedule of Gram Nyayalaya Act,

2008, only the Gram Nyayalaya is competent to try all suits and

proceedings of civil nature falling under its jurisdiction. It was thus

prayed that suit may be dismissed on this ground alone.

In reply to the application filed by petitioner-defendant under

Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, it was stated that Homeland City,

Sriganganagar in which suit property is situated had been

converted into residential from agriculture and therefore, the

(3 of 4) [CR-94/2022]

same is no longer an agricultural land. It was also stated that the

provisions of the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 are not attracted in

the present civil dispute. Moreover, issue No.4 framed by the trial

court deals with the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate and

decide the matter. The Court of Additional Civil Judge No.2 after

hearing the parties, vide order dated 16.05.2022 dismissed the

application filed by petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11,

CPC.

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2022, the present

revision petition has been filed. It is not in dispute that the trial

court has already framed issue No.4 to decide the jurisdiction of

the court to try the dispute between the parties. The pleadings of

the case establish that the issue of jurisdiction raised by

petitioner-defendant is a mixed question of law and facts. For the

purpose of aforesaid issue No.4, both the parties would have

opportunity to lead evidence, if necessary. It is settled law that

disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering

an application filed under Order7 Rule 11 of CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant made an

alternative submission that the trial court may be directed to

decide issue No.4 as preliminary issue. Reliance was placed on

judgment rendered by co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case

of Sun Petpack JBP Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) Thr. Director Shri Ravi Gupta vs. Shree

Pet Thr. Authorised Signatory Shri Krishna Gopal Nawal (2015 (2) DNJ

(Raj.) 498).

Needless to observe that even the preliminary issues may

also require recording of evidence of the parties. Therefore, no

direction in this regard is required to be passed at this stage.

(4 of 4) [CR-94/2022]

The present revision petition in the light of aforesaid

discussion is dismissed being devoid of merit so also the stay

application.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 102-Kshama/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)