Dismissed

Shri Nawal Kishore S/O Bihari Lal v. Anil Kumar S/O Late Shri Padmavati Prasad Jain

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2018CR/177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an order rejecting an application under O.7 R.11 CPC. The High Court held that the lower court correctly relied on the plaint's averments to determine jurisdiction under O.7 R.11 CPC, finding no merit in the revision despite an appeal to quash based on alleged bar of civil court jurisdiction in landlord-tenant disputes.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit; stay application also dismissed.

Shri Nawal Kishore S/O Bihari Lal Vs Anil Kumar S/O… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision No. 177/2018

¶3

Shri Nawal Kishore S/o Bihari Lal, B/c-Mahajan, R/o Tijara Owner Of Firm Ramjivan Jugal Kishore, Puraani Anaaj Mandi, Tijara, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Anil Kumar S/o Late Shri Padmavati Prasad Jain, R/o Puraani Annaj Mandi, Tijara, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent-Plaintiff

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manu Agrawal

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

04/10/2018

¶12

The present civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 27.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Tijara (Alwar) in Civil Application No.127/2015 (Anil Kumar v/s Nawal Kishore) whereby the learned court below rejected the application of the petitioner filed under O.7 R.11 read with section 151 CPC.

¶13

This revision petition is barred by limitation, therefore application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is also filed. Considering the facts mentioned in the application and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is allowed and delay in filing this revision petition is condoned.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CR-177/2018]

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner Shri Manu Agrawal submits that there is relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant for which the petitioner defendant has filed rent receipts before the trial court and since the dispute regarding landlord and tenant cannot be adjudged by the civil court, it can be decided by the Rent Tribunal only and in Rajasthan where there is municipal areas, the Rent Control Act is in force and as per section 18 of the Rent Control Act, civil court cannot hear the case of the landlord and the tenant. Without considering these facts, the learned court below has wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner defendant. Therefore, this civil revision petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the plaint may be rejected.

¶17

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

At the time of deciding the application under O.7 R.11 CPC the court has to consider the averments made in the plaint only and from the perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the nonpetitioner plaintiff pleaded that ^^fnukad 14@03@2007 dks gh oknh ,oa izfroknh QeZ us vkilh lgefr ls ekSf[kd :i ls fnukad 31@03@2007 ls fookfnr nqdku dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr dj nh FkhA ;kfu oknh ,oa izfroknh QeZ dk yS.M ykWMZ ,oa fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k lekIr dj fn;k FkkA^^

¶19

Thereafter, it is pleaded that ^^;g gS fd fnukad 01@04@2007 ls oknh us fookfnr nqdku izfroknh dks ekSf[kd :i ls vkilh lgefr ls ykbZlsUlh ds crkSj nh FkhA fookfnr nqdku ds vkxs fLFkr cjkenk o vyekjh izfroknh dks crkSj ykbZlsUlh ugha nh xbZ FkhA^^

¶20

Considering the aforesaid pleadings, learned court below has observed that ^^ oknh ,oa izfroknh ds chp esa edku ekfyd o

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CR-177/2018]

¶23

fdjk;snkj ds laca/k gS vFkok oknxzLr ifjlj ykbZlsUl ij fn;k x;k gS] ;s lHkh rF; ewy izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; vkus ds mijkar r; gksus okyk fcanq gS] ftldk bl LVst ij U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrkA^^

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned court below rejected the application submitted under O.7 R.11 CPC which does not require any interference.

¶25

Therefore, the present revision petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.

¶26

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶27

Chauhan/18

Shri Nawal Kishore S/O Bihari Lal v. Anil Kumar S/O Late Shri Padmavati Prasad Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nawal Kishore S/O Bihari Lal v. Anil Kumar S/O Late Shri Padmavati Prasad Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Devi Pandey Vs Ram Gopal Saini and Others

M/S Gem Palace and Others Vs Siddharth Bairathi and Others

Bhonri Lal S/O Late Shri Sohan Lal Vs Smt. Gulab W/O Shri Sohan Lal

Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital and Anr. Vs Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.

Harikishan Meena Vs Bansi and Ors.

Smt Chhoti Devi W/O Late Chhotu Singh Rawat Vs Sanwar Lal S/O Ramaji Jat