9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1807 - HC - Indian LawsPeaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent nos.1 and 2 - jurisdiction under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. - HELD THAT - A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed before the learned trial Judge after disposal of the special civil suit filed by them indicates that it was the case of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the suit was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court thereby granting liberty to the Civil Court to decide the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 5th September 2008 passed by the Collector. The averments made in the plaint indicates that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have applied for declaration that they are in possession of and/or are the permanent holders or occupants of the suit property and has a right to deal with and/or hold and/or to develop and/or to use and enjoy the suit property in any manner without recourse to the appellant (original defendant no.1). There is no dispute that during the pendency of these appeals from 2013 till 10th October 2016, there was no ad-interim relief in these appeals. On 10th October 2016, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 had made a statement before this Court that till the next date, the respondent no.1 would not proceed with the pending suits and counter claim therein before the learned trial Judge between the parties. There was no other ad-interim injunction granted by this Court in these appeals in favour of the appellant - There is no dispute that during the pendency of these appeals, the learned trial Judge has already framed several issues on 13th June 2016 under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. On 6th October 2016, the appellant itself had made an application for recast of the issue framed by the learned trial Judge on 13th June 2016 and has suggested twelve issues including the issue of limitation and also the issue of jurisdiction of the learned trial Judge to entertain, try and dispose of the suit in its present form in view of Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This Court has to consider whether at this stage, when the issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC having already framed by the learned trial Judge including the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the appellant in the written statement and the appellant already having made an application on 16th October 2016 unconditionally for recast of some of the issues by suggesting additional issues and the learned trial Judge already having directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to file the list of witnesses, this Court can put the clock back and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge granting interim relief. It is not in dispute that no ad-interim reliefs are granted by this Court in these four appeals and other connected four appeals. It would be in the interest of justice that in view of there being no ad-interim relief granted by this Court in these appeals in last three years and the learned trial Judge already having framed issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, the submissions now belatedly urged by the appellant cannot be entertained at this stage - the purpose and object of Section 9A of the CPC is to decide the issue of jurisdiction once raised expeditiously and before deciding the interim application finally and not to adjourn the said issue for determination along with the suit is with a view to expedite the hearing of such jurisdictional issue at the initial stage. There is no substance in the issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellant at this stage - the order rejecting the interim application filed by the appellant is set aside - the matter remanded back to the learned trial Judge for deciding the application under Section 9A of the CPC at this stage. Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Legality, correctness, and propriety of the order passed by the Collector. 3. Interim reliefs and counterclaims. 4. Applicability of Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 5. Limitation and procedural issues. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The primary issue was whether the learned trial Judge was bound to decide the application filed under Section 9A of the CPC before disposing of the application for interim relief (Exhibit-5). The appellant contended that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and this issue should be determined as a preliminary issue. The trial Judge, however, did not decide this jurisdictional issue first and proceeded to grant interim relief to the respondents. The appellant argued that this was a procedural error, citing various judgments which mandate that the issue of jurisdiction must be decided before granting interim relief. 2. Legality, Correctness, and Propriety of the Order Passed by the Collector: The respondents filed a suit challenging the order of the Collector dated 5th September 2008, which held that the appellant was the superior holder of the suit land. The Supreme Court had previously clarified that the Civil Court could decide the legality, correctness, and propriety of the Collector's order without being influenced by previous observations. The respondents sought declarations regarding their possession and rights over the suit property, challenging the appellant's status as a superior holder. 3. Interim Reliefs and Counterclaims: The respondents filed an application (Exhibit-5) for interim relief, which the trial Judge granted, restraining the appellant from disturbing their possession. The appellant filed a counterclaim and an application (Exhibit-29) for interim relief, which was rejected. The appellant argued that the trial Judge should have decided the jurisdictional issue first before granting or rejecting interim reliefs. 4. Applicability of Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: The appellant raised the issue that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This was one of the grounds for their application under Section 9A of the CPC, which they argued should have been decided as a preliminary issue. 5. Limitation and Procedural Issues: The appellant also raised the issue of limitation in their written statement, which touches upon the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Judge framed issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, including the issue of jurisdiction and limitation. The appellant later suggested recasting the issues, including the jurisdictional issue, but did not challenge the order framing these issues. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the appellant's issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the CPC was not pressed at the initial stage and was used as a litigational strategy. The trial Judge had already framed issues under Order XIV Rule 2, including jurisdiction, and the suit was ready for recording evidence. Setting aside the interim order at this stage would delay the trial further and defeat the purpose of Section 9A. The appellant's prayer to set aside the interim relief order and remand the matter back to the trial Judge for deciding the jurisdictional issue was rejected. The appeals were directed to proceed for final disposal on merits.
|
