(1.) This writ petition has been filed for prohibiting the respondent No. 1, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura to proceed with the Suit 1165 of 2003, Vijay Kumar Seth v. Rahmatullah and Ors., and for quashing the proceedings of the said suit.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case as stated by the petitioners are that the plaintiff- respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instituted a civil suit on 24.12.2003 for restraining the defendant petitioners from doing any kind of destructive activity and taking forcible possession of the land in dispute or interfering, in any manner, in peaceful possession of their enjoyment. The suit is pending. Petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 38215 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4th September, 2003 prior to institution of the said suit, wherein it had been submitted before us that the land in dispute belonged to them but the District Authorities had taken its possession temporarily for the purpose of holding the function of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh as the space adjacent to the said land where the function had been organised was found to be not sufficient for that purpose. Subsequently, they refused to hand over possession of the same to the petitioners after the function was over. This Court disposed of the said petition directing the petitioners to approach the District Collector, Mathura and the latter was directed to find out as to whether there was any dispute regarding title of the land and whether the averments made in the petition were true and to pass an order of restoration of the possession of the said land after being fully satisfied on the said issues. Grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the order passed by this Court, the District Authorities have not handed over the possession to them rather in order to overreach the said order, plaintiff-respondents have dragged the defendant-petitioners in a civil suit. The suit is not maintainable before the civil court as land has been recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records and it is only the revenue court which can decide the case. The defendant-petitioners have filed written statement before the civil court along with an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the C.P.C.) to return the plaint to present the same before the revenue court. However, the said application is not being decided. Hence this petition.
(3.) The only question involved herein is as to whether this is the appropriate case wherein this Court should exercise its discretionary Jurisdiction and issue a writ of prohibition to the civil court restraining it to proceed with the trial of the suit and to quash the proceedings of the said suit on the ground that the issue can be adjudicated only before the revenue court and not before the civil court.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN