The main legal principle established is that the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act only if the nature of the proceedings falls within the specific sections mentioned in column-2 of Schedule-I, and the description of proceedings in column-3 must be related to these specific sections.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. This regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the appellate court dated 20.7.2013 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit as being not maintainable in the civil court in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The case of the appellants before this court, and who were the defendants in the suit, is that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete bar to the maintainability of the suit. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. LPA No.81/2012 decided on 11.9.2012.

2. At the outset, it must be stated that the civil courts’ jurisdiction is barred by virtue of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act only if the proceedings before the civil court are either in form or in substance such/those proceedings which are found in any of the entries in Schedule-I to the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act contains a total of 9 columns for each of the entries. The third column is the description of the proceedings, however, what is more important is column-2 because description of the proceedings are only those as are relatable to the specific sections which are mentioned in column-2 of Schedule-I. Putting it in other words description of the nature of the proceedings in column-3 does not have independent existence which is to be conclusive of the nature of the proceedings and the nature of the proceedings in column-3 have also to be the proceedings which are subject of the specific sections in column-2 of the same entry. I have had an occasion to extensively examine this aspect in the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Smt. Munni Devi & Ors. RFA 621/2003 decided on 5.3.2012 wherein I have held that by virtue of Section 185 only those proceedings cannot be tried by civil court if such proceedings necessarily fall within any of the entries read with sections as contained in Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The relevant observations as contained in the said judgment are in paras 5 to 7 and which read as under:-

“5. In my opinion, the trial Court has fallen into a grave error in holding that the Civil Courts did not have jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of the Act. Section 185 has already been reproduced above and which Section shows that the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to try such suits which are mentioned in columns 2 and 3 of the Schedule I of the Act, and it is only with respect to such suits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts will be barred. The sections and type of the suits which are mentioned in columns 2 & 3 of the Schedule I of the Act, do not cover suits such as the subject suit for declaration, injunction and for cancellation of a sale deed/power of attorney on the ground of the same having been forged and fabricated. Such causes of action/reliefs of declaration and injunction which pertain to invalidity of the title documents which are said to have been got executed on the basis of a forged and fabricated General Power of Attorney are not covered under any of the Sections under columns 2 & 3 of Schedule I and they can be thus decided by a Civil Court. A reference to columns 2 and 3 of Schedule I of the Act shows that in none of the sections or the description of suits, mentioned in columns 2 and 3 of the Schedule I respectively, the subject suit would be covered. The only sections which can be said to be somewhat related to the issues/causes of action/reliefs in the suit are Sections 13 and 104. Section 13 pertains to an application to regain possession after bhumidhari rights are got declared and for which period of limitation is one year from the commencement of the Act. The Act commenced in the year 1954 and the subject suit for declaration and injunction cannot be said to be pertaining to Section 13 of the Act, and also be