Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3867 of 2001
PETITIONER:
RAJENDER SINGH
RESPONDENT:
VIJAY PAL @ JAI PAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
NON-REPORTABLE
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 5th of February, 2001 passed by a learned judge of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No.112 of 1996
whereby the High Court had allowed a second appeal filed by
the respondent No.1 and set aside the judgments and decrees
of dismissal dated 29th of January, 1996 and 20th of July,
1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi and the Senior Civil
Judge, Delhi, being the first appellate court, respectively.
2. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 had instituted the suit
before the Civil Judge, Delhi for declaration and injunction in
respect of the suit property and for other incidental reliefs. In
the said suit, a preliminary issue was framed to the extent that
in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in
short \021the Act\022), the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain
the suit was barred. Both the courts below held that the civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar
imposed under Section 185 of the Act. The High Court, in
second appeal against the judgments of the courts below,
held that in view of the nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit,
the jurisdiction of the civil court was not hit by section 185 of
the Act. Accordingly, the judgments of the two courts below
were upset by the High Court by the impugned judgment and
the trial court was directed to decide the suit on all other
issues on merits. Feeling aggrieved, the instant special leave
petition has been filed, in respect of which leave has already
been granted.
3. We have heard Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Namboodiri, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents. We have examined
the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as of the
courts below. The High Court in the impugned judgment held
that Section 185 of the Act could not be applied in view of the
nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit and therefore, the suit
shall be heard on merits on the other issues. In view of the
stand taken by us, as noted hereinafter, and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made
in the plaint, we are, prima facie, satisfied that this appeal can
be disposed of by directing the trial court to decide the suit not
only on the other issues on merits but also on the issue
regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit
in view of section 185 of the Act.
4. Such being the stand taken by us at this stage, we are
not going into the merits of the judgment of the High court as
well as of the courts below. The trial court shall now
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
commence the trial of the suit and decide the same on merits
on all issues, including the issue whether the civil court has
the jurisdiction to try the said suit in view of the bar of Section
185 of the Act. While deciding the suit, the trial court shall not
be influenced by any of the observations made by us or in the
impugned judgment by the High Court or by the courts below.
The trial court shall decide the suit within a year from the date
of communication of this order to it. With this modification in
the order of the High Court, the appeal is thus disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.