High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Gram Panchayat Village Bhateri v. Sadhu Singh & Anr. - RSA-1517-2003  RD-P&H 4464 (20 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 1517 of 2003.
Date of Decision: July 14, 2006.
Gram Panchayat Village Bhateri
Mr. H.S.Diwana, Advocate
Sadhu Singh & Anr.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)
This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose declaratory suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.1999 but on appeal by the respondents, the said judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 2.1.2003.
It may be mentioned here that the first Appellate Court dismissed the appellant's suit primarily on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same as the sale deed which the appellant wanted to be declared null and void pertains to a shamlat deh land and in view of the express provision contained in Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, (for short "the Act of 1961") no RSA No.1517 of 2003. :-2-:
civil suit pertaining to such a transaction could have been filed before the Civil Court.
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondents have put in appearance.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that having held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it was imperative upon the first Appellate Court to return the plaint and permit the plaintiff-appellant to pursue its remedy before an appropriate forum. He further contends that the plaintiff-appellant is ready and willing to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction under the Act of 1961 provided that such permission is granted by this Court and he is permitted to withdraw the civil suit.
It may be mentioned here that the objection of jurisdictional competence of the civil Court was taken by none else than the respondents.
It was they who pressed the said objection before the Appellate Court which upheld the same.
It may also be mentioned here that while issuing notice of motion, this Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs to be paid to respondent No.2. The said amount, learned counsel for the appellant states, has been deposited with the Registry of this Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by him, this appeal is allowed to the extent that judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts RSA No.1517 of 2003. :-3-:
below are set aside with liberty to the appellant to approach an appropriate forum under the Act of 1961. Needless to say that the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below having been set aside, findings, if any, contained in the same shall have no bearing upon the merits of the case to be adjudicated upon by the competent Court under the Act of 1961.
With liberty aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.
The Registry is directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- deposited by the appellant, to respondent No.2.
July 14, 2006. ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.