Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 456 (UTT)

Anand Singh v. Baishakh Singh

2020-11-18

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This S.C.C. Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2014 passed by Judge, S.C.C./IInd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in S.C.C. No.8 of 2011, "Shri Anand Singh and another vs. Shri Baishakh Singh", whereby learned trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/revisionists by deciding issue no.2 holding that there is no relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. 2. The revisionists/plaintiffs filed a S.C.C. Suit No.8 of 2011 for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. According to the revisionists/plaintiffs, revisionist/plaintiff No.2 is the owner and landlord of the disputed property and the respondent/defendant was tenant on the said property. 3. The respondent/defendant filed his written statement. He denied all the allegations of the plaint. According to the respondent/defendant, he had acquired the ownership on the disputed property by way of adverse possession. 4. Learned trial court framed issue No.2 regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the revisionist/plaintiff No.2 and the respondent. Learned trial court also framed issue Nos.3 & 4 as follows : (3) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. After completion of evidences and hearing of both the parties, learned trial court decided the case considering only issue no.2. 6. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the respondent through video conferencing. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that initially, Original Suit No.74 of 2009 "Shri Anand Singh and another vs. Shri Baishakh Singh", was filed in the Regular Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun for recovery of arrears of rent, eviction/possession, mesne profit against the respondent/defendant. In the said suit, objection was raised by the respondent in regard to jurisdiction of Regular Civil Court and an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the respondent on 24.09.2009, which was allowed by learned Regular Civil Court vide order dated 24.07.2010, which was challenged by the revisionists before the appellate court and the said Misc. Civil Appeal No.109 of 2010 was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rishkesh vide order dated 03.03.2011 and consequently, Original Suit No.74 of 2009 was re-numbered as S.C.C. Case No.8 of 2011 and was presented before Judge, Small Cause Court/ District Judge, Dehradun, which was subsequently transferred to the court of S.C.C./IInd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the respondent/defendant was contesting for the framing of issue regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue itself and the issue regarding jurisdiction of court was framed on the pleadings of the respondent/defendant and these issues regarding inherent jurisdiction of the Court should be decided before deciding the issue no.2. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionists contends that in this case, an important question of law is involved regarding the jurisdiction of a S.C.C. court, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was obligatory for the trial court to first decide the preliminary issues of law relating to jurisdiction and then to decide other issues. 10. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the matter is liable to be remanded to the trial court to decide the case afresh after deciding the issues of jurisdiction of the court. 11. During the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that issue nos.3 & 4 should be decided before deciding the issue no.2 and he also agrees that the matter should be remanded back. 12. It is true that order of remand should not be passed as a matter of course. However, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate to remand the matter to the trial court to decide the case afresh according to law. 13. Learned counsel for the both the parties also agree that they will not adduce any further evidence before the trial court. 14. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2014 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/IInd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in S.C.C. No.8 of 2011, "Shri Anand Singh and another vs. Shri Baishakh Singh", is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court concerned to decide the case afresh on the basis of the evidences available on record according to law as expeditiously as possible. No costs.