Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 935 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. Asat Ali

2016-07-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been ordered to be returned for being presented to the Debts Relief Court (’DRC’). 2. The plaintiff-Asat Ali filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,89,960/- against the appellant-defendant. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant and it was inter-alia, contended that the suit was not triable before the Civil Court and was required to be tried by the DRC under the provisions of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural indebtedness Act, 1957 (’the Act of 1957’). 4. The Trial Court framed four issues. Where after, evidence was led by the parties and after hearing the arguments, the Trial Court though decided issues No. 1 and 2 on the merits of the case in favour of the plaintiff, qua issue No. 3 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court, it held against the plaintiff and directed return of the plaint for being presented to the DRC. 5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the objections raised by the appellant regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, the issue No. 3 framed by the Trial Court pertaining to its jurisdiction should have been decided as a preliminary issue. Even if the same was not decided as a preliminary issue, while deciding the suit, the said issue should have been dealt with first so as to decide the jurisdiction of the Court before proceeding further on merits. 6. It is submitted that on the one hand, the findings have been recorded on merits against the appellant and thereafter, the plaint has been ordered to be returned for presentation before the DRC, which will prejudice the appellant’s case and therefore, the judgment impugned deserves interference by this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the judgment impugned and it was submitted that the findings recorded by the Trial Court does not call for any interference as the same is based on proper consideration of the evidence available on record. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. It is surprising that when the Court was of the opinion that it lacked jurisdiction on account of provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1957, still it went on to decide the merits of the dispute between the parties while recording the findings on issues No. 1 and 2. 10. Even after recording the finding on issues No. 1 and 2, while deciding the issue No. 3, if the Court was of the opinion that it lacked jurisdiction, it should not have delivered its opinion on issues No. 1 and 2 and based on its finding on issue No. 3, it should have returned the plaint for being presented before the DRC. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant is justified in submitting that the findings recorded on issues No. 1 and 2 by the Trial Court would prejudice his case which findings were not warranted once the Court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 12. In view of the above, though the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding its jurisdiction and return of the plaint is not interfered with, the finding recorded on issues No. 1, 2 and 4 are set-aside. The DRC is directed to deal with the matter uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 13. Looking to the nature of the case and the fact that the same is pending since 2008, the DRC is directed to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the it. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.