9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the suit was barred under Section 66(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). 2. Whether the court erred in refusing to decide the issue of bar under Section 66(1) as a preliminary issue. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute over partition of property among full brothers, sons of late Sushil Kumar Chandra. The suit property was purchased in a court sale in the name of the defendant alone, leading to a claim by the plaintiffs that the property was joint family property. The defendant argued that the suit was barred under Section 66(1) of the CPC as he was the certified purchaser. The court had to determine whether the suit was indeed barred under Section 66(1) based on the circumstances of the property acquisition and possession. 2. The defendant sought a preliminary determination on the issue of bar under Section 66(1) of the CPC, which was denied by the trial court. The defendant contended that the court should have decided this issue first, as it was crucial to the case. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the claim was not solely based on the purchase but on the property being joint family property, thus not falling under Section 66(1). The court examined the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the CPC, which allows trying an issue of law first if it relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit. 3. The court noted that while the trial court had discretion to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue, it was not mandatory under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the CPC. The court found that trying the issue of bar under Section 66(1) along with other issues would expedite the case and that both points required consideration of similar facts. Therefore, the trial court's decision not to decide the issue as a preliminary one was not an error of jurisdiction warranting interference. The court dismissed the application, with no order as to costs.
|
