2013 Supreme(Raj) 2336
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.
Nand Kishore - Appellant
Versus
Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer & Ors. - Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 16081 of 2013.
Decided On : 20-12-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Resham Bhargava, Advocate.
The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and should be exercised sparingly. The court will not interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it unless there has been a patent perversity, gross and manifest failure of justice, or a violation of the basic principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 14, RULE 2 - ORDER 7, RULE 14 (3) - REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 17 - INDIAN STAMPS ACT, 1899 - SECTION 2(14) - WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - INTERFERENCE WITH ORDERS OF TRIBUNALS OR COURTS INFERIOR TO HIGH COURT - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - WRIT APPLICATION CHALLENGING ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 14, RULE 2 C.P.C. AND ALLOWING APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7, RULE 14 (3) C.P.C. - DISMISSAL - REASONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. and allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and with jurisdictional error for non-registration of the documents as per the mandate of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. He also argued that the order allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. was erroneous in light of the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was correct and that the petitioner's arguments were without merit. The court noted that the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. allow the court to try and decide issues of law as preliminary issues only if they relate to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar created by any law for the time being in force. In the instant case, the issues framed by the trial court did not pertain to the jurisdiction of the court or any bar created by law. Therefore, the court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order was illegal and with jurisdictional error for non-registration of the documents as per the mandate of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908? 2. Whether the order allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. was erroneous in light of the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. allow the court to try and decide issues of law as preliminary issues only if they relate to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar created by any law for the time being in force. 2. In the instant case, the issues framed by the trial court did not pertain to the jurisdiction of the court or any bar created by law. 3. Therefore, the trial court did not err in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner/defendant Nand Kishore, in the instant writ application, has challenged the order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.', for short) filed by the petitioner/defendant while allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. subject to payment of cost of Rs. 250/-.
2. Briefly, the material facts and particulars necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application are, that the respondents/ plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of the sale deed pleading that the suit property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff Ramchand Lalchandani, from the respondents/plaintiffs number 1 to 15, through an agreement for sale dated 12.5.2008. According to the pleaded facts in the plaint, the suit property was handed over into the possession of the respondent/plaintiff number 16; and the petitioner/defendant threatened of forceful possession on the suit property since he purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 30.1.2009; executed by respondents number 18 to 25 (defendants number 2 to 9). However, this fact was repelled for the reason that the respondents number 18 to 25, had no right to sell the property in dispute.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant further submitted that on 12.7.2013; the respondents/plaintiffs moved an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., for taking on record certain documents i.e. agreement dated 12.5.2008, power of attorney dated 12.5.2008 and Will dated 12.5.2008. The petitioner/defendant also moved an application on 29.3.2013 under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C., for deciding issues number 1 and 5, before recording of the evidence. The application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. was resisted since all the three documents related to transfer of title and were not duly registered, hence,I inadmissible in evidence. The learned Trial Court having considered the pleadedl facts of the two applications and replies thereof as well as after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties passed the impugned order dated 12.7.2013 as indicated above, which is impugned in the instant writ application.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant has assailed the impugned order for being illegal and with jurisdictional error for non-registrationl of the documents as per the mandate of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act,190.8. He has further assailed the order allowing the application under Order 71, Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., on account of an erroneous interpretation of proviso to Sectional 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The order impugned is also questioned in the light of the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supporting the impugned order dated 12.7.2013, submitted that the petitioner/defendant filed the written statement to the suit and issues were settled on 5.12.2012. The affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief were placed on record before the learned Trial Court on 10.1.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner/defendant had been seeking time for cross-examination, prolonging the trial of the suit and as consequence on 20.9.2013 he was saddled with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned Counsel further argued that the instant writ application, is a gross misuse of process of the Court for the reason that issues number 1 to 5 cannot be decided ail preliminary issues since the issues are neither related to jurisdiction of the Counsel nor with regard to any bar contained in any law for the time being in force, and therefore, the learned Trial Court committed no error or illegality, calling for an;! interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistant perused the material available on
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
