Harinder Guman v. Paramjit Singh Dhillon

1. By this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the defendant prays for rejection of the suit plaint on the ground that, out of the properties of which partition is sought, the property which is situated in Delhi is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and hence the suit is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. With respect to the other properties which are agricultural lands in Punjab, a similar provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 is CS(OS) No.373/2012 2016:DHC:620 relied upon. It is further pleaded in the application that as per Section 16 CPC, a suit for immovable property which is not situated at Delhi will not lie in Delhi. It is also argued that defendant has already filed a suit against the plaintiff which is filed in the competent Court at Punjab and hence this suit cannot continue.

2. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC no doubt can be invoked at any stage, but, I find the facts of the present case are not fit for invoking the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for various reasons.

3. One reason is that issues in the present case were framed about a year back on 30.1.2015 and thereafter parties had to lead evidence but conveniently none of the parties are endeavouring to get evidence recorded before the Local Commissioner.

4. The next reason is that so far as the suit with respect to the agricultural land in Delhi being barred by relying upon Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is concerned, it needs to be noted that unless and until there is an averment in the written statement that the land situated in Tehsil Mehrauli has not been urbanized because of Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and hence continues to be rural land and thus the subject matter of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, this objection cannot be looked into. It is only if the land which is situated at Tehsil Mehrauli is not urbanized, the Delhi Land Reforms Act will continue to apply and once there is no averment in the written statement of the non-urbanization because no notification having been issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the application seeking rejection of plaint with respect to the land at Tehsil Mehrauli cannot be maintained.

5. I would also like to observe that object of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not to cause piecemeal decision of various issues and there cannot be rejection of a plaint in part as per settled law. The subject suit is a suit for partition for properties situated in Delhi as also in Punjab. It will be apposite if the issues which have been framed are tried together including of maintainability of the suit qua the properties either at Delhi or at Punjab because even if the stand of the applicant/defendant in the application is taken as correct, the same will not result in a complete rejection of the suit plaint in view of the detailed issues framed on 30.1.2015 and which read as under:- “(i) Whether the present suit for partition can be adjudicated by this court being barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 & 158 of Punjab Land Reforms Act? OPD

(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? OPD

(iii) Whether the late father of the parties; Late (Retd) Col, Kultar

Singh Dhillon executed a valid Agreement to Sell dated 5th July, 1973 alongwith receipt, registered General Power of Attorney, and Will for 1200 Sq. yards out of an area of 4400 sq. yards in favour of the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP

(iv) Whether Shri Kultar Singh Dhillon, the father of the parties, executed any Will dated 22/08/2011, if so, its effect? OPD

(v) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition in the properties mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint? If so, what is the share of the parties? OPP

(vii) Relief.”

6. The contention of the applicant/defendant relying upon Section 16 CPC that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction with respect to properties in Punjab is misconceived because of Section 17 CPC which states that where more than one court has jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any one court where any one immovable property is situated. Applicant/defendant has overlooked the provision of Section 17 CPC.

7. So far as the issue that defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending in the Court at Punjab and therefore the trial of the present suit should not continue as per Section 10 CPC, it is noted that the defendant has not raised such issue/defence of Section 10 CPC framed when issues were framed on 30.1.2015. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/defendant also concedes that no defence/objection as per Section 10 CPC has been raised in the written statement filed by the defendant. Clearly therefore application beyond the scope of written statement cannot be looked into. So far as properties in Punjab are concerned, as already stated above, if are taken piecemeal for decision of the issues in the suit, the same will result in various decrees and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so in view of the fact that there may be issues with respect to interpretation of various provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it will be appropriate that all the issues are decided together after leading of evidence, and at the stage of final arguments.

8. Dismissed.