HAMIR REAL ESTATE (PVT.) LTD. Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing No. 7148 of 2014, wherein, the order passed on application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, at the instance of the petitioner -defendant, has been rejected and in CR No. 7149 of 2014, an application seeking amendment of the plaint, at the instance of the respondent -plaintiff has been allowed.

(2.) Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - defendant submits that suit for separate possession by way of partition of the suit land was not maintainable, for the reasons that on on 8.12.2008 (Annexure P -3), an application for partition of land measuring 13 kanals 16 marlas was filed before the revenue Court.

(3.) Mr. Parvinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -plaintiff submits that application seeking partition was filed on 08.12.2008, but on 02.01.2009, the petitioner -defendant obtained the CLU (change of land use) converting the nature of land into commercial. This fact has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 10 of the plaint. Before the revenue Court, an application for dismissal of the partition was filed as it was filed against the dead person. After that, an application dated 10.12.2010 was filed before the Tehsildar to ascertain the outcome of partition proceedings vis -a - vis whether such proceedings are pending or not. Thereafter, an application was filed challenging the jurisdiction of the revenue Court on account of change of nature of land but the same has erroneously been dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2011 and Sanad Taksim has been passed after filing of suit, i.e., on 20.01.2013. Once the character and nature of the property changed from agricultural to commercial, therefore, revenue Court did not have the jurisdiction, then the final partition proceedings dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P -7) and Sanad Taksim are without jurisdiction and rightly so, the amendment in the suit was sought by way of declaration of the aforementioned orders. In support of his aforementioned contentions, relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Surjit Singh vs. Financial Commissioner Appeals -II, Punjab and others, 2012(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 683, wherein, the judgment rendered in Fauja Singh's case (supra) has also been discussed and the view expressed in Fauja Singh's case helped the case of the party to ascertain the jurisdiction of the revenue Court. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the revision petitions.