Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3045 (RAJ)

Hari Prasad v. Suresh Kumar

2019-12-17

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge No.1, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") whereby the "Trial Court" dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that he is in ownership and possession of the suit property Guwadi situated in ward No.6 Bhuda Ka Bas, Khandela, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. The said property is said to be joint family property of plaintiff's father and defendant No.1. It was also stated that the plaintiff's father Jeevanram and defendant No.1 Hari Prasad are real brothers. It was also stated that in the said Guwadi two houses were constructed and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were using the same from the time of their forefathers, according to their equal shares. The defendant No.1 sold his share as well as the share of plaintiff to defendant No.2. Defendant no.1 is trying to get patta of the same in collusion with the defendants no. 3 to 5. 3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed by defendant no.1 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the total area of the disputed land is 450 sq. meters and the DLC rate of the same is Rs.2588/- per sq. meter. In this view of the matter, valuation of half of the suit property is more than Rs.52,00,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court and thus the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed the reply to the said application wherein it was stated that due to typographical error the measurement of the suit property was mentioned 300 ft. instead of 85 ft. from east to west and 150 ft. instead of 65 ft. from north to south. In this regard, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was already filed. instead of 85 ft. from east to west and 150 ft. instead of 65 ft. from north to south. In this regard, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was already filed. It was also stated that neither written statement has yet been filed nor the issues have been framed, if the defendant no.1 has any objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial court, he has to raise such objection at appropriate stage. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide its order dated 03.09.2019 rejected the defendant No.1's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 6. Hence, this writ petition: 7. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that from the averments made and the relief sought in the plaint, the suit was not triable by the Trial Court for the reason that the total area of the disputed land is 450 sq. meters and the DLC rate of the same is Rs.2588/- per sq. meter. In this view of the matter, valuation of half of the suit property is more than Rs.52,00,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court. However, the learned trial Court has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter, therefore, the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. It is not in dispute that due to typographical error, the plaintiff had already moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the Trial Court, which is pending adjudication. In my considered opinion the objection with regard to valuation of the suit property is a mixed question of law and fact. At this stage, the averments made in the plaint are required to be seen and the averments made in the written statement or in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with regard to jurisdiction of the Trial Court are wholly irrelevant. If the defendants have any objection regarding jurisdiction, they have a right to raise the same in their written statement, upon which an issue can be framed by the Trial Court and will be adjudicated by the Trial court after leading the evidence by both the parties in this regard. 10. If the defendants have any objection regarding jurisdiction, they have a right to raise the same in their written statement, upon which an issue can be framed by the Trial Court and will be adjudicated by the Trial court after leading the evidence by both the parties in this regard. 10. In view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any material irregularity or error of jurisdiction, as such the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 11. I find no force in this revision petition. It is, accordingly, Dismissed.