BHAJAN LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.1.1997 passed by respondent No. 2, exercising the power of Judge, Small Causes Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for returning the plaint and the order dated 28.2.1997 passed by respondent for dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order. The facts in brief are that Rahmat Khan, respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 18 of 1974 against Kalloo Ram, father of the petitioner, for ejectment on the allegation that Shobhraj Bhatia was owner of the property. He had executed sale deed on 26.3.1966 in favour of the plaintiff -respondent No. 3. The defendant was tenant of Shobhraj Bhatia and after the transfer of property he failed to pay arrears of rent to him. The defendant filed written statement and took the plea that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court as the premises in dispute was not open land but was a covered structure. The trial court held that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court. The defendant filed Civil Revision No. 122 of 1978 against the findings of the Additional Munsif. The revision was allowed by IVth Additional District Judge, Mathura, holding that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court as it was filed on the allegation that there was relationship of landlord and tenant and on such allegation the suit as cognizable by Judge, Small Causes Court. The plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff to file the case in the Court of Judge, Small Causes. On return of the plaint, respondent No. 3 filed suit in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Mathura and it was numbered as suit No. 91 of 1982. During the pendency of the suit, Kalloo Ram died and the petitioner was substituted as one of the heirs. He filed written statement alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that Kalloo Ram was tenant of Shobhraj Bhatia from whom respondent No. 3 had purchased the disputed property. Shobhraj Bhatia was not owner of the property. The defendant was in possession of the property in dispute for the last 31 -32 years as owner and in any case he had perfected rights by adverse possession. One of the plea was that the suit was not cognizable by Judge, Small Causes Court. Issue No. 3 was framed as to whether the suit should be transferred to the regular side of the Civil Court. The Judge, Small Causes Court on 4.1.1985 held that the suit was cognizable by Small Causes Court and it cannot be transferred on regular side in the Civil Court. The petitioner filed revision No. 17 of 1985 against the said finding on issue No. 8. The District Judge dismissed the revision on 7.2.1985.

(2.) THE petitioner again filed an application (Paper No. 162 -C) on 22.2.1996 for returning the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the question of title. This application was opposed by the plaintiff -respondent. The application was dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 20.1.1997. The petitioner filed revision against the said order and the revision has been dismissed on 28.2.1997. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has now challenged the orders dated 20.1.1997, rejecting the application filed by him in suit No. 91 of 1982 for return of the plaint to the plaintiff -respondent and order dated 28.2.1997 passed in revision affirming the said order. The question involved is as to whether the Court was justified in rejecting such application.