K BALKRISHNAN Vs. PARSEE ZORASTRIAN ANJUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the Order dated 29. 06. 2006 made ini. A. No. 454 of 2005 in O. S. No. 68 of 2004 by the learned Subordinate Court, Ooty , this civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, at the admissions stage itself, by order dated 8. 11. 2006, this court allowed the CRP directing the trial court to decide the jurisdictional issue of Civil Courts to try the issue. Now, the respondent has come out with the Miscellaneous Petition No:2 of 2007 for setting aside the earlier order passed in the CRP on the ground that no notice has been served on him in the CRP and he was not given an opportunity to put forth his contentions. In fact the matter was adjourned on several occasions and inspite of that there was no representation on behalf of the respondents and ultimately order dated 8. 11. 2006 was passed. However, to give one more indulgence, the CRP was again listed for hearing and after hearing both sides the following order is passed on merits.

(3.) REFERRING to the above said Sections in the Acts, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in the present case the status of the revision petitioner as a Cultivating Tenant has never been disputed before the court below, the respondents have issued a six month's notice to the petitioner under Section 106 of the T. P. Act which will prove that it is an agricultural lease and not a urban lease. According to the learned counsel, the court below dismissed the I.A. , for preliminary issue solely on the ground that under section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, the tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act stood repealed, and that therefore, the bar of suit under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act would not apply. But the court below failed to see that once the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act was held to apply, then there was an independent bar of suit under Section 58 of that Act and therefore, irrespective of whether the T.N. Cultivating Tenants Protect Act applies, or the T.N. Public Trusts Act applies the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. According to the learned counsel, since the point involved is a pure question of law, not requiring any kind of factual enquiry, it is a fit case where the court can exercise the power under Order XIV Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.