BHAGWANTI Vs. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ellenabad vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rules 10 & 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the 'CPC') for rejection of plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred under Sec. 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Acts, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to entertain the suit. The only remedy available to the plaintiff was to file the appeal against the impugned order under Sec. 18 of the Act. Thus, he contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by law and the plaint was liable to be rejected. To support his contentions, he has placed reliance upon cases Azad Vs. Dharampal : 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 139, Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 491, Mange Ram & another Vs. Tek Ram and others : 2011(4) Law Herald 3392, Surinder Singh and another Vs. The Prescribed Authority (SDO Civil) Mahendergarh others : 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 542, Rai Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 564, Jai Kishan Dass and others Vs. The Haryana State and others : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 848, Hari Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 635, State of Haryana Vs. Hari Om and others : 2012 (5) RCR (Civil) 581, Gurbax Singh and others. Vs. State of Haryana and others 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 693, Attar Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010(4) PLR 696, Balbir Chand and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 417, Bhag Mal and others Vs. Ram Murti and others : 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 557.

(3.) I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.