VIRENDER SINGH Vs. JEET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 151 CPC against the order dtd. 31/8/2022 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Gurugram in civil suit no.CS-6348-2018 dtd. 17/12/2018 (Annexure P-1), vide which the application dtd. 3/1/2019 (Annexure P-4) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, filed by the predecessor of the petitioners, has been rejected. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents no.1 to 4 had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against 13 defendants including defendant no.3- Dharampal, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. It is argued that in the said suit, challenge has been made to the partition proceedings which have culminated vide partition order dtd. 16/10/2007 and that the challenge to the said partition proceedings is barred under Sec. 158 (2) (xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 as applicable to the State of Haryana, now called The Haryana Land Revenue Act 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "1887 Act"). It is submitted that as per the said provision, any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy or any question connected thereto is to be raised in the said proceedings and Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over the said matter. Sec. 158(2)(xvii) which has been highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioners, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(3.) It is submitted that since in the present plaint, the challenge has been made to the partition proceedings which is covered under the abovesaid provision, thus, the civil suit is barred and in view of the same, the present petitioners along with the written statement had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. It is argued that the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 31/8/2022 had dismissed the said application on surmises and conjectures and the said order dtd. 31/8/2022 is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed and the plaint deserves to be rejected on the said ground alone. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4