Rajasthan High Court
Ashok Kumar S/O Mahaveer Prasad vs Smt. Rukmani Devi W/O Shri ... on 11 January, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 72/2021
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 48 Years
2. Krishan Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar Alias Billu
3. Deepesh Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar Alias Billu
4. Manish Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar Alias Billu
5. Dablu S/o Virendra Kumar Alias Billu,
All Residents of Hinduancity, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Defendants-Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Shri Pooranmal, Resident of Mohalla
Keshavpura, Hinduancity, Tehsil Hinduan, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate
through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak, Advocate through
VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
11/01/2022
The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioners-defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section
115 CPC challenging the order dated 28.07.2020 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hinduan City, Karauli whereby
application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been
dismissed.
Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that
the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for
eviction and recovery of rent. During the pendency of the suit,
the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
(2 of 3) [CR-72/2021]
wherein it was stated that the suit property being situated within
the municipal limits of Hindaun, on which the Rajasthan Rent
control Act, 2001 was applicable, the suit filed under the
provisions of Transfer of Property Act was not maintainable,
therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present
suit.
The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing
detailed reply.
The trial Court vide its order dated 28.07.2020
dismissed the defendants' application. Hence, this revision petition
has been filed.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the
learned trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to
consider the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015: K.
Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj, in which it was held that once the
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal
areas, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute
between a landlord and a tenant. Therefore, the trial Court has no
jurisdiction to try the present suit and the same be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the judgment passed in K. Ramnarayan (supra)
was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the trial Court
has jurisdiction to try the concerned suit.
After making aforesaid submissions, both the learned
counsel have jointly agreed that the trial Court may kindly be
directed that it shall not pass final judgment in the suit.
(3 of 3) [CR-72/2021]
In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to
proceed further but shall not pass final judgment in the suit
pending before it till an order is passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in K. Ramnarayan's (supra) case.
This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
MR/23
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
