SURESH BALA Vs. RAMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the appellate court dated 20.7.2013 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit as being not maintainable in the civil court in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The case of the appellants before this court, and who were the defendants in the suit, is that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete bar to the maintainability of the suit. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. LPA No.81/2012 decided on 11.9.2012.

(2.) At the outset, it must be stated that the civil courts' jurisdiction is barred by virtue of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act only if the proceedings before the civil court are either in form or in substance such/those proceedings which are found in any of the entries in Schedule-I to the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act contains a total of 9 columns for each of the entries. The third column is the description of the proceedings, however, what is more important is column-2 because description of the proceedings are only those as are relatable to the specific sections which are mentioned in column-2 of Schedule-I. Putting it in other words description of the nature of the proceedings in column-3 does not have independent existence which is to be conclusive of the nature of the proceedings and the nature of the proceedings in column-3 have also to be the proceedings which are subject of the specific sections in column-2 of the same entry. I have had an occasion to extensively examine this aspect in the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Smt. Munni Devi & Ors. RFA 621/2003 decided on 5.3.2012 wherein I have held that by virtue of Section 185 only those proceedings cannot be tried by civil court if such proceedings necessarily fall within any of the entries read with sections as contained in Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The relevant observations as contained in the said judgment are in paras 5 to 7 and which read as under:-

(3.) Another judgment on this aspect delivered by me is in the case of Subash Chand Vs. Gaini Ram & Ors. RFA 167/2008 decided on 24.5.2012 wherein I have held that reliefs claimed in the suit fall into two types of classes. One type of reliefs which in form and substance with its cause of action, are those falling within any one or more of the entries in schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act i.e nature of the proceedings are those as per both the description and the sections, then, qua such reliefs and causes of action civil courts cannot try the suit. However, second type of proceedings are those which to the extent of causes of action and reliefs are such that they do not fall in form and substance under the description of the proceedings and the sections as contained in the entries to Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and in such cases qua those reliefs and causes of action the suit is maintainable in civil courts. In the said judgment I have referred to the relevant paras of Ashok Kumar's case in para-3. Paras 4 to 7 of the judgment in the case of Subash Chand read as under:-