HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the order dated 5th May, 2011, the writ petition is finally heard at orders stage With the consent of the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Hanumangarh, (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in Civil Suit No.13/2009, whereby the issue No.3 has been decided by the trial court in favour of the respondent No.9 (original plaintiff) and against the petitioner (original defendant No.9).

(3.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent No.9 (original plaintiff) has filed the suit against the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and the petitioner (original defendants) seeking mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question. The said suit has been contested by the petitioner-defendant No.9 by contending inter alia that the suit was not maintainable before the civil court in view of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Trial court framed certain issues from the pleadings of the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner- defendant submitted an application requesting the trial court to decide the issue Nos. 4 and 7 as preliminary issues, which pertained to the issue of jurisdiction of the court, as to whether the suit was barred under any law, and whether the suit was filed without paying sufficient court fees. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide Order dated 12.01.2011, against which, the petitioner had preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1083 of 2011. The court vide order dated 07.02.2011 partly allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the said order of the trial court to the extent of refusal to decide the issue No.3 as preliminary issue and directed the trial court to try and decide the issue No.3 as preliminary issue. The trial court pursuant to the said order passed by this court, heard the learned counsels for the parties and decided the said issue in favour of plaintiff by holding in the impugned order dated 07.04.2011 that the court had the jurisdiction under Sec. 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to decide the suit, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.