1. By the impugned order dated 03.03.2011, the learned trial court of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara has rejected the application of the defendant No.2-Union of India in the present suit for specific performance, which was filed by the plaintiff-Sohan Lal s/o Shankar Lal against the vendor-Om Prakash s/o Motilal in respect of a suit property situated at Plot No.3, Ashok Nagar, Bhilwara.

2. The defendant No.1-Om Prakash s/o Motilal was declared an absconder in the trial under the NDPS Act and the proceedings for attachment of his property were undertaken by the Union of India under Chapter VI Part C – Proclamation and Attachment containing the provisions from Section 82 to Section 86 in Cr.P.C. The objections against such attachment were raised by the plaintiff-Sohan Lal before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, but before such objections could be decided, the plaintiff-Sohan Lal also filed the present suit for specific performance against the vendor-Om Prakash impleading the Union of India and the State Government also as defendants No.2 & 3 respectively in the said suit.

3. The Union of India filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the said plaint. Their objections were rejected by the learned trial court of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara by the impugned order dated 03.03.2011 with the following reasons:-

^^9- fl-iz-l- dh /kkjk 9 ds vuqlkj nhokuh U;k;ky; dks lHkh izdkj ds nhokuh izd`fr ds ekeyks es fopkj.k djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj jgrk gS tc rd fd mls fdlh fof/k }kjk laKku ysus ls oftZr ugh fd;k x;k gksA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; Jh xaxk@fot;dqekj] , vkbZ vkj 1974 ,l lh 1126 ,oa , vkbZ vkj 1718 vCnqy oghn [kku@Fkkojh esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ,d eqofDdy dks ;fn nhokuh izd`fr ds ekeys ds f’kdk;r (Grievance) gS tks mls Lora= :Ik ls nhokuh okn lafLFkr djus dk vf/kdkj jgrk gS tc rd fd og U;k;ky; fof/k }kjk vfHkO;Dr ;k foof{kr :Ik ls laKku ysus ds fy, oftZr u gks vFkkZr fof/k }kjk oftZr u gksA bl izdj.k esa Hkh /kkjk 84 na-i-la- okn otZu ugha djrh vfirq oknh dks /kkjk 84¼4½ ds rgr vkifŸk;ka izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj iznŸk djrh gS ,o /kkjk 84¼4½ ds rgr okn izLrqr djus dk Hkh vf/kdkj jgrk gS vr% /kkjk 84 ds rgr dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ,d oSdfYid vuqrks”k gS tks oknh dks okn izLrqr djus ls oftZr ugh djrh gSA

10- pwafd izzkFkhZ@izfroknh dk dFku jgk gS fd oknh dh vkifŸk;ka varxZr /kkjk 84 na-iz-la- ds rgr U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] HkhyokM+k ds le{k fopkjk/khu jgrs gq, okn izLrqr fd;k gS blfy, bl izØe ij U;k;ky; dks Jo.kkf/kdkj ugh jgrkA U;k;ky; fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh ds bu rdksZ ls lger ugha gS D;ksfd okn ds fizesP;;ksj dks fLFkfr esa izLrqr gksus ls U;k;ky; dk Jo.kkf/kdkj lekIr ugha gks tkrkA U;k;ky; ds bl er dh i`f”V ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; foëyHkkbZ@Hkkjr la?k Mh ,u ts 2005 ,l lh ist 543 ls gksrh gSA

11- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr izdj.k esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd %& “The question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the court.”

12- izfroknh@izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLRkqr fd;s x;s lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`”Vkar 1997 fØ-ykW-tu- ist 843 ¼dsjy½ dk llEeku voyksdu fd;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 84 ds rgr m)ksf”kr ¼Qjkj½ O;fDr dh laifŸk dqdZ gksus ls r`rh; i{kdkj ds }kjk nhokuh okn izLRkqr djus ls /kkjk 84¼4½ oftZr ugh djrhA /kkjk 84 dk vuqrks”k vuqKs; gS] vuuU;r% ughA

13- izfroknh@izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vU; lEekuh; U;kf;d n`”VkaRk 2009¼1½ M+h ,u ts ¼jkt-½ ist 197 dk lEeku voyksdu fd;kA mDr izdj.k fofufn”V vuqrks”k vf/k-dh /kkjk 6¼2½ ls lacf/kr Fkk] tcfd ;g okn /kkjk 6 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ls lacf/kr ugha gS vr% bl izdj.k ds RkF; mDr izdj.k ds rF;ks ls iw.kZr% fHkUu gksus ls bl ij ykxw ugha jgrs gSaA

14- izfroknh@izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vU; lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`”Vkar 2008¼1½ MCY;w ,y lh ¼,l lh½ flfoy ist 39&40 ,oa , vkbZ vkj 1996 ,l lh ist 1089 dk llEeku voyksdu fd;k mDr nksuks izdj.kks