Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2133 (RAJ)

Ram Bilas v. LRs of late Shri Shikhar Chand

2014-12-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC has been dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500/-. 2. In a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, an objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court was raised by the petitioner. 3. After two rounds of litigation before this Court, the trial court framed issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction; after framing of the issue, the present application under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC was filed by the petitioner seeking decision on the issue as preliminary issue. 4. The trial court by its impugned order came to the conclusion that the issue was mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the same cannot be decided as preliminary issue and dismissed the application with a cost of Rs. 500/-. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application, as the issue by its very nature was preliminary and pertained to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and from the facts of the case itself, the issue could have been decided; the trial court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue was a mixed question of law and facts. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. While the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the rent of the suit premises at Rs. 1,200/- per month, the petitioner-defendant has contested the rate of rent and claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 330/- per month only and based on said plea, it is claimed that the suit has been filed before a higher court, seeking to take away the right of the defendant to file an appeal, if the occasion arises. 8. The very fact that there is a dispute as to whether the rent of the suit shop is Rs. 1,200/- per month or Rs. 330/- per month, the said aspect cannot be decided without parties leading their evidence; the trial court has framed issue in this regard and, therefore, it cannot be said that the issue was not a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. 9. 1,200/- per month or Rs. 330/- per month, the said aspect cannot be decided without parties leading their evidence; the trial court has framed issue in this regard and, therefore, it cannot be said that the issue was not a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. 9. A grievance was raised by the petitioner that the trial court has imposed cost of Rs. 500/-, which is unreasonable as the petitioner has right under the law to file application for safeguarding his interests and it cannot be said that the application was frivolous. 10. Without going into the legality of imposing cost by trial court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the cost imposed by the trial court shall not be paid by the petitioner. However, it is expected that the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments so as to delay the proceedings, which is said to be one of the oldest cases before the trial court.In view of the above, no case for interference except cost imposed by the trial court is made out.Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******