High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 CHH CK 0095

Tejram Sahu vs Sawal Singh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 8 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WP227 No. 15 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 355 words

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1.

Heard.

2.

The instant petition is against the order dated 27.11.2017, whereby learned Court below has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the

civil suit and the suit is not barred under any law.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that preliminary ground raised in the plaint is on the ground that the Tehsildar has wrongly mutated

the name of the petitioner herein, for which expressly the civil Suit is not tenable. Therefore, on the earlier round of litigation, this Court has directed to

decide the preliminary issue and the trial Court ignoring the provisions of law has decided the issue and has said the suit is maintainable. He would

further submit that the entire pleading of the plaint would show that the suit was based on the ground that the mutation were wrongly made.

4.

Perusal of the record would show that the preliminary issue was framed on 03.11.2017, which was directed to be decided by this Court in WP

(227) No.593/2014 and accordingly, the same is decided. Perusal of the plaint would show that various reasons have been assigned to claim the relief

and the suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit the primary relief is claimed that the plaintiff be declared as the owner of the

suit land. Various pleadings have been made that how wrongly the mutation proceeding has been made. Therefore, the Court cannot ignore the final

relief, which the plaintiff has eventually claimed that of the declaration that he is the owner of the suit land.

5.

Perused the order dated 27.11.2017. The order impugned also is of the nature if had it been decided in favour of the petitioner, the suit have been

finally disposed of by dismissal. Taking into the prayer made, the order challenged before the Court below, I do not find any jurisdictional error

whereby the suit is held to be tenable for declaration and permanent injunction. It is for the trial Court to adjudicate the case on merits. Consequently,

no relief can be granted in this petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.