KULDIP RAJ GUPTA Vs. SMT. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mst. Raj Rani respondent filed a suit against Kuldip Raj, petitioner for his ejectment and recovery of rent. It was alleged that the property was outside the municipal limits of Amritsar, and therefore, the provision of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) were not applicable thereto. The claim for rent and ejectment was valued in the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at one year rent. In his written statement the petitioner took up a preliminary objection to the effect that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the property was situate within the municipal limits of Amritsar. The second objection of preliminary nature taken up by him was that the suit was not property valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. In reply to the first preliminary objection of plaintiff stated in her replication that the property is situate outside the municipal limits of Amritsar, and this point is res judicata between the parties as already a decree for recovery of rent had been passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, and even in appeal the decree for recovery of rent was upheld. From the pleadings of the parties the following preliminary issues framed by the trial Court on June 6, 1975 :-

(2.) Before the preliminary issues could be decided the plaintiff-respondent made an application to the trial Court to frame the issues on merits also and to dispose of the whole case together. That application was allowed by the order of the trial Court, dated January 5, 1976, on the ground that only such issues could be treated as preliminary under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Cole of Civil Procedure as were issues of law and could be disposed of without recording any evidence. It is unnecessary to deal with the large number of cases cited by both sides as to whether this view of law is correct or not because on the facts of this case there is no doubt that both the preliminary issues (issues Nos. 1 and 2) are pure points of law and no evidence need be led on those issues except the copies of the judgements of the trial Court and (if the appellate Court on the previous litigation between the parties referred to in the pleadings. Both sides have referred to that litigation. It is on a mere reading of the two judgments in the previous case that the Court has to see whether the question of fact about the property in dispute being or not being within the municipal limits of Amritsar has been decided or not. If a decision on that point has already been recorded in the previous litigation between the parties, naturally both parties are bound thereby and that decision must operate as res judicata on that point. On the question of court-fee the objection of the defendant-petitioner was wholly vague. Even now the learned counsel has not been able to show in what respect and how the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. This kind of and objection can be disposed of by the trial court in one minute after hearing whatever the parties may have to say about it. There is no question of any evidence being recorded on an issue of that type. Even otherwise the normal course is that whenever an objection about the court-fee payable on a plaint, is raised that must be decided before entering on the merits of the controversy as a finding about the court-fee being insufficient will lead to the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code if the plaintiff refuses to make up the deficiency. I am also of the view that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to normally review in own order, dated June 6, 1975, whereby it had been categorically held that the issues relating to res judicata and court-fee and jurisdiction will be decided as preliminary issues.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons I allow this petition, set aside and reverse the order of the trial court, dated January 5, 1976, and dismiss the application of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code in so far as a prayer for deciding all the issues together was made therein. It would be open to the trial Court to let the issues framed by it on merits remain intact if as a result of the decision on preliminary issues the case is not disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Parties have been directed to appear in the trial Court on December 7, 1976.