Najmi Waziri, J.:--

1. This petition impugns an order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (North) in Execution No. 213 of 2009 whereby the objections filed on behalf of the JD under Section 47 of CPC challenging the very basis of the judgment and decree were dismissed.

2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondents herein in the year 2000 for restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the land and further restraining them from objecting to the plaintiffs raising a boundary wall or from dispossessing them from the suit premises without due process of law. The petitioner’s case is that the respondents had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 469/2002 which was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 14.02.2005 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 since the suit property was situated in a rural area and was an agricultural land. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondents had filed another suit bearing No. 1/06/05 apropos the same land and the relief which was prayed for in the earlier suit, was prayed for in this suit also. This suit, however, was decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent suit did not disclose dismissal of the earlier suit. Since, it amounted to concealment of material facts; the decree would be bad in law. He further submits that the Civil Judge would have no jurisdiction to pass the decree in the circumstances since such a suit is barred under Section 185(1) of the D.L.R. Act. He further contended that there is no notification of urbanisation of the land in question. He relied upon the cases of Sh. Balbir Singh v. Pt. Pehlad, AIR 1988 Del 312; Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiya lal (1973) 2 SCC 474 and Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash, (1977) 2 SCC 662 in support of his contentions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bagai submits that in the first instance, the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the decree which is being sought to be set aside in this petition because the earlier suit was dismissed as not maintainable under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the subsequent suit in respect of the same land was not maintainable. He submits that in the absence of any challenge to the earlier judgment of 14.02.2005, it had attained finality.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Thareja submits that the present petition is not maintainable since the decree which is being sought to be executed has attained finality and an appeal alone would lie, if so preferred.

6. Mr. Thareja further submits that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the premises of the suit property. He submits that the present petitioner/defendant had already admitted in the WS that he was never in possession of the premises. Mr. Thareja relied upon a decision of this Court in N.B. Singh (HUF) vs. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 159 DLT 729 which held that a property ceases to be an agricultural property if it is not used for agricultural purposes. The aforesaid judgment had relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Ram Lubbaya Kapoor v. J.R. Chawla and Others, 1986 RLR 432 which held that any land before it can be termed as “land” for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 must be held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, etc. and if the land is not used for said purposes, it ceases to be land for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It has been further held that a Bhumidhar is bound, not only to retain possession of his land but also use it for specified purposes at all material times if he is to continue to be a Bhumidhar. However, Mr. Bagai, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Balbir Singh (supra) which held that the jurisdiction of a Civ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document