Delhi District Court
Additional District Judge - 18 vs Ravinder 1/5 on 20 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. KULDEEP NARAYAN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 18, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 169/14
Unique ID No. - 02401C0 1163 2008
Sh. Ram Pal
Versus
Sh. Ravinder & Ors.
ORDER
20/10/2014 This order shall decide the preliminary issues framed vide order dated 21/10/2009.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of land measuring 136 Bighas and 5 Biswas, particularly mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Rajokri, New Delhi (for short "T he suit land") , to restrain the defendants from raising any construction, using for any non-agricultural purposes in violation of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short " The Act" ), from creating third party interest and for directing the defendants to demolish the structure / construction raised on the suit land.
3. Defendants no. 1 to 12 did not contest the suit and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25/08/2011. The Defendants no. 13 to 17, 21 & 22 jointly filed Written Statement. Defendant no. 18 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01/11/2002. Defendants no. 19 filed separate Written Statement.
Suit No. 169/14 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder 1/5
4. Vide order dated 02/08/2006, application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed and the defendants were restrained from raising any construction or selling, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit land till disposal of the suit.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant no. 20 filed a FAO No. 240/06 and CM No. 124/18/06 before the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 12/01/2010. In the meantime, vide order dated 21/10/2009, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable before a Civil Court and is barred by Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff does not have any locus standi to file the present suit. OPD.
3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is barred under section 11 of CPC? OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff does not have any cause of action to file the suit? OPD.
7. Whether the defendants no. 13 to 22 have rightfully raised constructions / structures in the suit property? OPD.
Suit No. 169/14 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder 2/5
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent and mandatory injunctions as prayed in the plaint? OPP.
9. Relief.
It was also observed that the arguments would be heard on preliminary issues no. 1 to 5.
6. I heard arguments on the preliminary issues on both sides and perused the material available on record.
Having heard the arguments, in my considered opinion issues no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 cannot be decided as preliminary issues as the same are issues of fact. Only issue no. 1 i.e. Whether the suit is not maintainable before a Civil Court and is barred by Delhi Land Reforms Act, can be decided as preliminary issue, being an issue of law.
As per record, vide order dated 02/08/2006, Ld. Predecessor allowed the application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff and also rejected the contentions of the Counsel for the defendants about the bar of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit in view of section 185 of the Act. No ambiguity or infirmity was found by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 12/01/2010 with the findings of the Ld. Predecessor. A perusal of both the orders dated 02/08/2006 of this Court and 12/01/2010 of the Hon'ble High court clearly reflects that the objections with regard to the bar of jurisdiction under section 185 of the Act was considered at length and the categorical Suit No. 169/14 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder 3/5 findings was returned that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the present suit is not barred under section 185 of the Act. The order dated 12/01/2010, of the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality.
During the course of arguments, Sh. Sanjay Manchanda, Ld. Counsel for the defendants, relying upon Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. Vs. Wyeth Ltd., 198 (2013) DLT 521 (FB) contented that any observations made in an interim order are always prima facie in nature and made only for purpose of disposing of interim injunction. He also placed reliance on T. Arivanandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., 1978(1) All India Rent Control Journal 33 and Ved Prakash Kharbanda Vs. Vimal Bindal, 198 (2013) DLT 555 to contend that vexatious and merit less proceedings should be nipped in the bud and suit should be dismissed under order 7 rule 11 CPC.
7. Having heard the submissions, I am not satisfied with the contentions of Sh. Manchanda, Ld. Counsel for the defendants. Though, his contentions with regard to a prima facie nature of observation while deciding an application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC is correct, the fact remains that such prima facie view is to be taken only with regard to facts as disclosed in the plaint. The question of law pertaining to competence of the Court to try the suit cannot be taken a prima facie view and a categorical findings is to be returned with regard to the jurisdictional aspect of the Court. Both the orders dated 12/01/2010 of Hon'ble High court and 02/08/2006 of this Court are self explanatory that a definite findings with regard to jurisdiction of this Court, to try the present suit has been returned. The order of the Hon'ble High Court was not challenged Suit No. 169/14 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder 4/5 and the same had already attained finality and therefore, the contentions of Sh. Manchanda in view of the judgment dated 14/05/2007 passed in CS (05) No. 1332/07 titled as " Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs. M/s B.R.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd." cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue already decided by the Hon'ble High Court.
8. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the jurisdiction of this court to try the present suit is not barred under section 185 of the Act. The aforementioned issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Ordered accordingly.
Dated: 20/10/2014 (Kuldeep Narayan)
Announced in open Court. Additional District judge-18, (Central)
Court No. 349, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
Suit No. 169/14 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder 5/5