JOHN NAGAR Vs. HANS NAGAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No.2530/2014 (under Section 24 of the CPC by defendant No.1)

(2.) Reply has been filed opposing the application. The contention of the plaintiff is that beside the fact that the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC are not applicable to revenue courts, even otherwise on merits, since the land is identifiable and having houses and boundary walls built upon it and the parties having agreed in terms of the consent decree have already decided as to which part of the property has to fall upon which party, the question of demarcation/any further physical division of the property does not arise. This application is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the applicability of Section 24 of the CPC, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the High Court under this provision of law can transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it "to any Court subordinate to it" and the Court subordinate to it includes the Civil Courts only which are subordinate to it and it does not include the revenue Court and for this proposition reliance has been placed upon Sections 3 & 5 of the CPC. This submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is correct. However this by itself may not be reason enough to defeat the application of defendant No.1 as a wrong nomenclature would not defeat the right of a person if otherwise he makes out any such right and in this context, reliance by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 upon Vijaya Bank Vs. Shyamal Kumar Lodh, 2010 6 JT 506 has been noted. Thus this Court while ignoring the nomenclature of the application proceeds to decide as to whether these proceedings pending before it are liable to be transferred to the Revenue Authorities at this stage or not.