Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Chand Son Of Shri Murari Lal vs Ashok Kumar Son Of Late Shri Bhagwati Lal on 31 October, 2019
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17943/2019
Suresh Chand Son Of Shri Murari Lal, by caste Brahmin, Resident
of Gangapur City C/o Sonu X-ray, Opposite Government Hospital,
Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Defendant-Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Kumar Son Of Late Shri Bhagwati Lal, by caste Mahajan
Agarwal, Resident of Infront of Government Hospital, Gangapur
City, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Plaintiff-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 31/10/2019 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Balaram & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.139/2018 wherein on 17.05.2019, the following order was passed:-
"The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hindaun City whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 was dismissed.
Brief facts given rise to this revision petition are that the petitioners-defendants submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC wherein it is stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlords for eviction of the defendants by giving statutory notice under Section 106 and 107 of the Transfer of property Act, whereas in view of Section 18 of Rajasthan Court Act, 2001 suits relating to landlords and (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:15:22 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-17943/2019] tenants with regard to tenancy rights are to be tried only by the Rent Tribunal, therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit.
The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing detailed reply wherein they denied the averments made in the application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015: K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj, in which it was held that once the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal areas, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and the same be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the nonpetitioners-plaintiffs has submitted that the judgment passed in K. Ramnarayan (supra) was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the concern suit. It is also submitted that earlier also an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioners-defendants and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, the present application is barred by constrictive res-judicata.
After making aforesaid submissions, both the learned counsel have jointly agreed that the trial Court may kindly be directed that it shall not pass final judgment in the suit.
In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to proceed further but shall not pass final judgment in the suit pending before it till an order is passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Ramnarayan's (supra) case.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly."
(Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:15:22 AM)(3 of 3) [CW-17943/2019] In that view of the matter, issue notice to the respondents.
Meanwhile, the trial Court is directed to proceed further but shall not pass final judgment in the suit pending before it.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /101 (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:15:22 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)