Punjab-Haryana High Court
Leela vs Dera Baba Ram Gir Dhudhan Dhari Sajuma on 12 January, 2012
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
CR No.8011 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.8011 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.1.2012
...
Leela
................Petitioner
vs.
Dera Baba Ram Gir Dhudhan Dhari Sajuma
and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Challenge in this revision petition under Article 227of the Constitution of India is the order dated 8.10.2011 Annexure P-4, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide which the preliminary issue whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable under any provision of law has been decided against the defendants.
Briefly stated, plaintiffs Dera Baba Ram Gir Dhudhan Dhari Sajuma and another filed suit for declaration and possession with the allegation that Dera Baba Ram Gir Dhudhan Dhari Sajuma is the owner of the property and Chetna Nand Gir Chela Mahant Jit Gir Dera Baba Ram Gir is the Mohatmin of the said Dera. The CR No.8011 of 2011 -2- compromise decree in the earlier suit dated 2.11.2000, is the result of fraud and consequently, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and possession.
Defendants have contested the suit. Preliminary issue was raised by the defendants to the effect that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is alleged that compromise decree dated 2.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal, has been challenged. The provision of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is that compromise decree cannot be challenged by a separate suit and as such the present suit is not maintainable. The suit is barred by limitation as it has been filed after 9 years. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the law on this point, returned the finding on preliminary issue against the defendants. The said order dated 8.10.2011 passed by Sh. Prashant Rana, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, deciding the preliminary issue against the defendants, has been challenged by one of the defendants in the present revision petition.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case.
Puran Gir guardian of Om Gir executed lease deed No. 876 dated 27.10.1987 for a period of 99 years, which was challenged in earlier suit. The lease deed was held to be null and void vide judgment dated 11.6.1999 passed in civil suit No. 405 of 1996, decided by Sh. C.L. Mohal, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal. However, it was observed that possession can be taken by resorting to proceedings before the revenue court. That judgment was challenged CR No.8011 of 2011 -3- before the District Judge in civil appeal No. 37 of 1999. The plaintiff No.2 is stated to have appointed as Mohatmin on 17.10.2000. In order to deprive the rights of dera as well as plaintiff No.2, defenant No.2 suffered statement vide which compromise decree dated 2.11.2000 was passed and defendant No.1 was held lessee upto 2080. The plaintiffs having coming to know about the said compromise decree filed civil Misc. application No. 63 of 2001 on 27.8.2001 in the Court of Sh. R.C. Bansal, the then Additional District Judge, Kaithal. However, ultimately the same was dismissed by Sh. Manjit Singh, the then Additional District Judge Kaithal vide order dated 25.2.2003. The plaintiffs filed CR No. 2774 of 2003 in this Court and this Court vide order dated 9.12.2008 held that plaintiffs can get their remedy by filing a separate suit. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed.
The matter has already been adjudicated by this Court and plaintiffs have been given opportunity to file suit. The trial court has given detailed reasoning for deciding the preliminary issue against the petitioner. It has been rightly held by the trial court that limitation would be 12 years and not 3 years. Moreover, the plaintiffs were contesting the compromise till 2008 and thereafter, the present suit has been filed in the year 2009. So, on that account also, the suit is within limitation. The trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have not only challenged the compromise but have challenged the capacity of defendant No.2 to enter into compromise, in as much as, he was not a Mahant of the Dera and as such, he was not competent to enter into the compromise. Otherwise also, the property of Dera cannot be leased out for a period of 99 years just for a song. It has CR No.8011 of 2011 -4- been rightly observed by the trial Court that defendants should have filed suit after observation by this Court on 9.12.2008.
So, in view of the above circumstances, the preliminary issue has been rightly decided against the defendants. Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri ) 12.1.2012 Judge chugh