Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
LT COL Paramjit Singh Dhillon – Appellant
Versus
Harinder Singh Ghuman - Respondent
FAO(OS) 97 of 2016, CM Appln. No. 10511 of 2016, 20861 of 2018
Decided On : 19-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Sachin Datta, Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Kritika Khanna, Ms. Prity Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Shiv Chopra, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Mr. Mayank
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of a suit for partition involving properties situated in different jurisdictions should be determined based on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and relevant state laws, and attempts to delay the proceedings may result in dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Headnote:
Territorial Jurisdiction - Suit for Partition - Section 16 CPC, Section 17 CPC, Section 158(17) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 16 and Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deal with the jurisdiction of courts in suits involving immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. The court also considered Section 158(17) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to partition of estates, holdings, or tenancies. The court held that there was no territorial bar to the maintainability of the suit in Delhi, as properties located in Delhi were involved, and the bar under the PLR Act did not apply to the issues of title in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought rejection of a suit for partition of properties situated in Delhi and Punjab. The appellant relied on territorial jurisdiction and the provisions of the Delhi High Court Rules and the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appellant's application for rejection of the suit, stating that there was no territorial bar to the maintainability of the suit in Delhi and that the bar under the PLR Act did not apply to the issues of title in the present case. The court also noted the appellant's attempt to delay the proceedings and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: The issues involved territorial jurisdiction, maintainability of the suit, and the appellant's conduct in delaying the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no territorial bar to the maintainability of the suit in Delhi, as properties located in Delhi were involved, and the bar under the PLR Act did not apply to the issues of title in the present case. The court also considered the appellant's conduct in delaying the proceedings and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant with costs quantified at Rs.50,000 and appointed a Local Commissioner to record the evidence and conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing his application for rejection of the suit. The learned Single Judge notices that the appellant/defendant’s claims for rejection of the suit, encompasses this Court in Delhi and Punjab and that the suit is a suit for partition for properties situated in Delhi as also in Punjab and some of them were agricultural properties. The learned Single Judge considered the application-framed issues, and has pressed his opinion in the following terms :
“6. The contention of the applicant/defendant relying upon Section 16 CPC that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction with respect to properties in Punjab is misconceived because of Section 17 CPC which states that where more than one court has jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any one court where anyone immovable property is situated. Applicant/defendant has overlooked the provision of Section 17 CPC.
7. So far as the issue that defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending in the Court at Punjab and therefore the trial of the present suit should not continue as per Section 10 CPC, it is noted that the defendant has not raised such issue/defence of Section 10 CPC framed when issues were framed on 30.1.2015. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/defendant also concedes that no defence/objection as per Section 10 CPC has been raised in the written statement filed by the defendant. Clearly therefore application beyond the scope of written statement cannot be looked into. So far as properties in Punjab are concerned, as already stated above, if are taken piecemeal for decision of the issues in the suit, the same will result in various decrees and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so in view of the fact that there may be issues with respect to interpretation of various provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it will be appropriate that all the issues are decided together after leading of evidence, and at the stage of final arguments.
8. Dismissed.”
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant specifically relies upon Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules, Part B, to say that the courts can entertain the suit relating to the dispute as to title and revenue assessed land in a partition proceeding, when the revenue officer declines to determine the question as though he were a Civil Court and, refuses to partition until the question is determined by a competent Court.”
2. The learned senior counsel also relied upon Section 158 read with Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter “PLR Act”) to submit that there is a threshold as to the maintainability of the suit before this Court, as it predominantly involves agricultural land for which local courts initially have exclusive jurisdiction.
3. Section 158(17) of the PLR Act pertinently states as follows:
“158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue-officers:- Except as otherwise provided by this Act- (1) a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the [State Government) or a Revenue-officer is empowered by this act to dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the {State Government} or any Revenue-officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular-.
(2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely: -
(i) Any question as the limits of any land which has been defined by a revenue-officer as land to which this Act does or does not apply;
(ii) any claim to compel the performance of any duties imposed by this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force on any Revenue-officer as such.
...
(xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with,: or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not
