NAKUL AND OTHERS Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated July 30, 1983, whereby the order of the trial Court returning the plaint was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction on the ground that he was the owner in possession of the house situated in village Ishaqpur, Tehsil and District Karnal. The portion marked A, B, C and D in red colour in the site plan was a part and parcel of his house and was being used for keeping botaras and for parking buggis. The defendants were out to dispossess him forcibly from the said portion; hence the present suit. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken that the site, in dispute, vested in the Panchayat and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court in such matters was barred in view of the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it was reiterated that the property was owned and possessed by him from the time immemorial and that it never vested in the Gram Panchayat. The trial Court found that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit since it had to give a finding as to whether the property, in dispute, vested in the Gram Panchayat or not and that its jurisdiction to go into that question was barred under section 13 of the Act. As a result, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff. In the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's suit as such was maintainable and was not barred under section 13 of the Act. Consequently, the case was sent back to the trial Court for decision on merits. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) At the time of the motion hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited Chhaju Ram v. Nand Lal, 1982 PunLJ 399. According to the learned counsel, since the civil Court has to determine as to whether the property vested in the Gram Panchayat or not, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under section 13 of the Act and, therefore, the trial Court rightly returned the plaint to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that what is to be determined in the suit is whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property or not and, therefore, the civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit. According to the learned counsel, section 13 of the Act was not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. In any case, argued the learned counsel, abadi deh was no more shamilat deh in view of the provisions of the Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981 whereby sub-clause 4(a) of section 2(g) of the Act, was omitted. In support of his first contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mangli Ram v. State of Haryana,1981 PunLJ 489 and The Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat, Pehowa, 1976 PunLJ 237.