SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.95 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jodhpur, District Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 1/93 (Shyam Lal v. State of Raj, & Ors.) whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed, wherein he prayed to hear and decide Issues No. 5 and 6 alongwith other Issues framed on 23.9.95. The learned Civil Judge passed the order that Issues No. 6 relates to the jurisdiction to try the suit and being a issue of pure question of law should be decided as preliminary issue under O. XIV R. 2 CPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the non-petitioners defendants to restrain them from interferring in carrying on the business of sale of stones by the petitioner in the name and style M/s. Shyam Lal Tulsi Ram' on Akhali' (a place) situated in Khasra No. 6 of village Bedli described in Para No. 3 of the plaint. The petitioner claimed that he has not violated the provisions of any law applicable to his business but the non-petitioners defendants are interfering out of mere enmity.

(3.) The non-petitioners filed written statement controverting the averment in the plaint and also took the plea that the Civil Court had no Jurisdiction to try the suit because it related to an agricultural land. The learned Civil Judge settled the issues on 23.9.95 and adjourned the case for hearing the arguments on Issues No. 5 and 6 as preliminary issues. The petitioner submitted an application under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC that Issues No. 5 and 6 do not involve question of law and should be heard and decided with all the other issues. This application came to be rejected under the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties. The learned Civil Judge held that both the issues are preliminary issues involving question of law and exercised discretion under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC for deciding the issues of the initial stage. He disagreed with the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that despite being issues of question of law, the Court ought to decide mem with other issues.