Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Chander Shekhar Banta – Appellant
Versus
Padam Dass – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Bipin Chander Negi, J.)
The instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Court No.8, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 105 of 2019, whereby an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the present petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Respondents No.1 and 2 in the case at hand were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. They had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the partition proceedings as carried out in Case No.38 IX/XII passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Rural Shimla dated 17.10.2014 decided on 28.10.2017 titled as Virender Singh vs. Madan Singh and others and the instruments of partition dated 27.09.2017 drawn in pursuance to the aforesaid partition proceedings are illegal, wrong, void ab initio and do not affect the joint status of the parties. A further declaration was sought with respect to the mutation attested in pursuance to the aforesaid partition orders. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the present petiti
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over partition proceedings unless fundamental judicial principles are violated; mere erroneous orders do not constitute jurisdictional errors.
The main legal point established is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded in matters within the jurisdiction of revenue officers as per Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge partition proceedings by revenue authorities unless a question of title arises or jurisdictional defects are alleged, as prescribed by Section 171 of the H....
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is fundamental and must be specifically addressed; failure to do so vitiates the judgments.
Civil Courts cannot adjudicate matters concerning partition as per H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171, which restricts jurisdiction in partition disputes, asserting that remedy lies within revenue au....
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation if the plaintiff is not in possession of the land and fails to meet the conditions for imperfec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Civil Court's power in executing partition and delivering possession in cases of partition of agricultural land, as clarified....
A decree issued by a court lacking jurisdiction is void and can be challenged in execution proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article