CHARAN SINGH Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar allowing the appeal of the respondents-plaintiffs preferred against the order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nakodar vide which the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of jurisdiction. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against the petitioners-defendants claiming themselves to be owners in possession of two plots, situated within the revenue estate of village Nawan Pind Jattan, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, on the basis of sale deeds dated 21.02.1916 and 08.04.1948 with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession. In pursuance to notices, the defendants put in their appearance. Issues were framed by the trial Court on 15.05.2006 and parties were asked to lead their respective evidence. The plaintiffs closed their evidence on 06.05.2009 and defendants also closed their evidence on 29.10.2009. The plaintiffs also tendered some documents in rebuttal evidence. At that stage, the trial Court treated issue No. 2 as preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit and ultimately rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. vide order dated 14.12.2009 holding that since court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, therefore, the plaint is bound, to be rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2.2009; the plaintiffs preferred appeal which has been accepted vide impugned order dated 19.04.2011 and trial Court has been directed to dispose of the civil suit on merits. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Admittedly on the pleadings of parties, issues were framed and issue No. 2 framed in respect of jurisdiction of civil court was treated as preliminary issue. The trial Court recorded finding on issue No. 2 and since it came to the conclusion that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaint has been rejected without recording any finding on other issues. Once finding has been recorded by the trial Court on preliminary issue, learned Appellate Court was bound to record its findings on the same very preliminary issue. However, learned lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that issue No. 2 was not treated as preliminary issue immediately after framing of issues, but since this step was taken by the trial Court at the final stage, the trial Court should have recorded findings on all issues. In view of this, the lower Appellate Court has remanded the case to the trial Court for recording findings on all issues. This approach of learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Once the issue of jurisdiction has been treated as preliminary issue and finding has been recorded holding that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, learned lower Appellate Court was bound to record its finding on the same very issue and could not have simply remanded the case by observing that the finding on all the issues is required to be given by the trial Court. In view of above, I find that the impugned order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-8) suffers from patent illegality and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Once the trial Court has come to the conclusion that civil court has no jurisdiction, asking it to record findings on all other issues would be totally unwarranted and wastage of precious time of the Court. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-8) is set aside. The case is remanded to learned Appellate Court with a direction to record finding on issue No. 2 treating it as preliminary issue and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before learned Appellate Court on 22.10.2013.