High Court allowed revision challenging dismissal of application to reject suit on lack of jurisdiction. Court restrained Trial Court from passing final judgment pending Apex Court decision in K. Ramnarayan case.
Trial Court directed to proceed but not pass final judgment until Apex Court decides K. Ramnarayan case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 72/2021
----Defendants-Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Shri Pooranmal, Resident of Mohalla Keshavpura, Hinduancity, Tehsil Hinduan, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak, Advocate through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
11/01/2022
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 28.07.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hinduan City, Karauli whereby application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
(2 of 3) [CR-72/2021]
wherein it was stated that the suit property being situated within the municipal limits of Hindaun, on which the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001 was applicable, the suit filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act was not maintainable, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit.
The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing detailed reply.
The trial Court vide its order dated 28.07.2020 dismissed the defendants’ application. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015: K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj, in which it was held that once the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal areas, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and the same be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the judgment passed in K. Ramnarayan (supra) was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the concerned suit.
After making aforesaid submissions, both the learned counsel have jointly agreed that the trial Court may kindly be directed that it shall not pass final judgment in the suit.
(3 of 3)
[CR-72/2021]
In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to proceed further but shall not pass final judgment in the suit pending before it till an order is passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ramnarayan’s (supra) case.
This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
MR/23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit for eviction when the property is under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
Whether the appellant should be restrained from passing a final judgment in the pending suit pending the Apex Court decision in K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Ramnarayan Vs. PokhrajReferred¶17
K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pokhraj
K. Ramnarayan Vs. PokhrajReferred¶22
D.B. Civil Reference No.1/2015
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar and others
Smt. Rukmani Devi
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
