Naval Singh vs Raghuveer Singh and Others

Atul Kumar Jain, J.—In Civil Suit No. 73/2011 titled as Raghuveer Singh v. Smt. Usha Singh and Anr. pending in the court of ADJ No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant No. 2 Nawal Singh and that application was dismissed by the said court. In Civil Revision Petition No. 39/2012. Nawal Singh has challenged the said order dated 10.04.2012 before us.

In Civil Suit No. 74/2011 titled as Mandhata Singh v. Smt. Usha Devi and Anr. pending in the court of ADJ No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant No. 2 Nawal Singh and that application was dismissed by the said court. In Civil Revision Petition No. 39/2012. Nawal Singh has challenged the said order dated 10.04.2012 before us.

In both these appeals it has been mentioned in the memo of appeal that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) had filed the suit for the land situated at village Chittora Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur for which the territorial jurisdiction lies with the Additional District Judge Sambhar Lake and the court below which has passed the impugned order has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

The court below has not decided the issue of jurisdiction and it has observed that the issue of limitation and issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact for which evidence of both the parties will have to be recorded and only then after these issues may be decided.

I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the facts mentioned in the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant No. 2 in both the suits and I am of the firm opinion that the issues, of territorial jurisdiction as well as of limitation in the circumstances of the cases were preliminary legal issues which could have been decided by the court below without taking any evidence in this regard and so the trial court should not have postponed the decision on these issues indefinitely or till recording of the evidence of both the parties.

Hence, the trial court is hereby directed in both the matters to frame preliminary legal issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and regarding limitation. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial court should first decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction, and, then, if the said court finds that it has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit then it will have to decide the issue of limitation also on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and if the issue of limitation is decided against the plaintiff in both the suits then the application of the defendant No. 2 filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC will automatically become infructuous.

For the satisfaction of the parties list of rulings submitted by them is reproduced as below.

For appellants:--

"(1) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and anr. v. P. Neeradha Reddy and ors. decided by the Apex Court on 13.02.2015 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5254/2006.

(2) Kamlesh Babu and Others Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others, .

(3) Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hede and Company, .

(4) Vimal Builders Vs. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and Others, .

(5) Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others, "

For respondents:--

"(1) Kamala and Others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Others,

(2) Ramesh B. Desai and Others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Others, .

(3) 2013 (3) DMC (Raj.) 1219 Vijay Shankar v. Ram Sharan.

(4) Sukrit Verma and Another Vs. State of Raj. and Another, .

(5) 2008 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 285 Pushpendra Kumar v. Gulabchand."

For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore impugned order dated 10.04.2012 in both the matters are hereby quashed and set aside. And, thus, both the revision petitions are partly allowed and stand disposed of as above. Stay petitions are hereby dismissed in the above background.

Two copies of this order be sent to the court below immediately for necessary action.