VIJAY KUMAR SACHDEV Vs. BALDEV RAJ BHUTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th March, 1991 passed by Shri Prem Kumar, Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi whereby the suit of the plaintiff (Shri Amar Nath Sachdev) has been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 284 Facts leading to the revision petition are that the plaintiff (Shri Amar Nath Sachdev) filed a suit for declaration before the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No.T-29-C-l, Road.No.20, Baljit Nagar, New Delhi and for injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from selling, alienating or parting with possession of the premises in CR 418/91 .h2 dispute. According to the plaintiff, he permitted purely on compassionate ground his daughter (defendant No.2) and son-in-law (defendant No. 1) to live in the premises in dispute. However, the defendants have started quarreling with him and now they are claiming that they are the owners of the house on the basis of a forged agreement to sell, stated to have been signed by the plaintiff with the defendants and the defendants now are threatening to sell the property and hence the suit.

(2.) The trial court framed and tried two preliminary issues, namely:-

(3.) (I) "Subject to the provisions of rule IOA, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted." Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contention made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. However, he submitted that the present revision petition is not maintainable as appeal lies against an order passed under Order 7 Rule 10, under Order 43 Rule l(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even otherwise, since the suit has been dismissed and a decree has been passed, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal against the order and not the revision petition and hence the revision petition merits dismissal.