Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 50 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan v. Rajendra Prasad

2016-01-07

VINEET KOTHARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-defendant in a suit for declaration, eviction & recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Jodhpur District in Case No.133/2014 (184/2012) "Rajendra Praasad v. Vinod & Ors." by which, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. By the impugned order dated 27.07.2015, the learned Trial Court had rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff essentially seeking declaration of his rights on the basis of will dated 01.06.1978 is triable by the Civil Court. The learned Trial Court has also rejected the contention of the defendant that the suit is barred by Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 according to which the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases in respect of the landlord and tenant. 3. The learned Trial Court has also rejected the contention of the defendant that the suit is barred by Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 according to which the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases in respect of the landlord and tenant. 3. The reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge for rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under:- ^^gLrxr izdj.k esa okni= ds voyksdu ls gkykafd oknh }kjk pkgs x;s vuqrks"k la[;k 2 esa mlds }kjk oknxzLr nqdku la[;k 3 esa izfroknh la[;k 1 fdjk;snkj dks csn[ky dj dCtk oknh dks fnykus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS o blh izdkj vuqrks"k la[;k 4 bl vk'k; dh vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k oknh dks fnykus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS fd oknxzLr nqdku la[;k 3 dk cdk;k fdjk;k rFkk ekg ds ekg fdjk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 oknh dks vnk djsa] ysfdu lEiw.kZ okni= ds voyksdu ls oknh dks izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk fdjk;k vnk fd;k tk jgk gS ;k vHkh fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;k gS] bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls oknh o izfroknh la[;k 1 ds e/; edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj dk laca/k LFkkfir gksuk okni= ds voyksdu ls n`f"Vxkspj ugha gksrk gS o blh vk/kkj ijoknh }kjk iwoZ esa U;k;ky; fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kdj.k] tks/kiqj ds le{k izLrqr ;kfpdk fnukad 11-05-2011 dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA gLrxr okn esa okni= ds voyksdu ls oknh us eq[; vuqrks"k oknxzLr nqdku la[;k 3 ds gd o ekfydkuk gd oknh ds i{k esa olh;rukek fnukad 01-06-1978 ds vuqlkj ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk ,oa oknxzLr nqdku dks izfroknh ;k vU; fdlh O;fDr dks ugha cspus dk ?kks"k.kkRed ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkK dk vuqrks"k pkgk gS rFkk fooknxzLr nqdku ds ekfydkuk gd ,oa vfLrRo ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vf/kdkj flfoy U;k;ky; dks gh gSA LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vf/kdkj fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kdj.k dks izkIr ugha gSA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk Hkh vko';d gS fd oknh }kjk izLrqr okni= esa mfYy[kr dFku dk izfroknh la[;k 3 ,oa 4 }kjk fnukad 07-07-2012 o izfroknh la[;k 2 }kjk fnukad 22-11-2012 dks is'k fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftlls gLrxr okn ds eq[; fook|d iz'uksa dk fu/kkZj.k fook|d fojfpr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ mHk; i{kdkjku~ dh lk{; ys[kc) fd;s tkus ds ckn gh fd;k tkuk izdj.k ds U;k;laxr fuLrkj.k ds fy;s fof/klEer gSA vr% izfroknh la[;k 1 o 3 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij vUrxZr vkns'k VII, fu;e 11 rFkk vkns'k VII, fu;e 11 o /kkjk 11 lifBr /kkjk 151 Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr ugha gksus ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs is'k djus tokc nkok izfroknh la[;k 1 o ,Mfe'ku fMuk; o dk;eh rufd;kr gsrq fnukad 10-07-2015 dks is'k gksA Sd/- flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVs~V tks/kiqj ftykA** 4. The learned counsel, Mr. A.R. Nikub, appearing for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the principles of res judicata because the plaintiff has earlier also filed a suit in respect of the same property before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur. The learned counsel also submitted that since the matter pertains to the eviction of the defendant which was covered under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, therefore, the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the present suit is triable by the Civil Court. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 deserves to be set aside. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court for rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 does not require any interference of this Court in the present revision petition and, therefore, the revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner is liable to be dismissed. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court is expected to frame the issues in respect of res judicata and jurisdiction of the Civil Court and decide the same as preliminary issues. Ordered accordingly. 6. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant-Laxmi Narayan S/o late Pappa Ram is dismissed with the observations aforesaid. No costs. A copy of this order may be sent to the Court below and to the parties concerned forthwith.