Dismissed

Omprakash v. Satyanarayan

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2023CFA/56/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil First Appeal against an order dismissing a suit as barred by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Court affirmed that a court without jurisdiction cannot try other issues like limitation. The finding on jurisdiction was upheld, while the limitation finding was set aside. Since the appeal was dismissed after affirming the jurisdictional finding, the appeal fails.

What did the court decide?

The finding regarding limitation was set aside; parties to approach the Revenue Court. The appeal is dismissed.

Omprakash Vs Satyanarayan — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:19925]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 56/2021

¶4

Omprakash S/o Motilal Jat (Chowdhary), Aged About 55 Years, Ashok Nagar, Bhilwara, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Smt Uma Devi, Ashok Nagar, Bhilwara

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Satyanarayan S/o Sohanlal Sharma, Near Khedakhoot Mataji, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Sandeep Saruparia
	Mr.	Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vinay Jain
	Mr.	Darshan Jain

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

06/07/2023

¶13

The present regular appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.55/2020 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendants has been allowed and consequently the suit as preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that so far as the finding of the Court below on the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the same is in consonance with law and the same be affirmed by this Court. However, he submits that the other finding regarding the issue of limitation deserves to be quashed and set aside as once the Court below had reached to the conclusion that

[2023:RJ-JD:19925]

[CFA-56/2021]

(2 of 3)

the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it could not have gone into the other issues whatever it may be.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Court did have jurisdiction to do so.

¶20

A perusal of the order impugned dated 12.02.2021 makes it clear that the Court below has specifically concluded that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court in terms of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. In the specific opinion of this Court, once the Court reaches to a conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction to hear a matter, it cannot then proceed on to consider or decide any other issue. As the counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded the finding on the issue of jurisdiction to be valid, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the finding regarding the suit being barred by law, to be specific, in terms of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is upheld and the order dated 12.02.2021 is affirmed to the said extent.

¶21

The finding as reached by the trial Court on the issue of limitation is hereby set aside. The parties would be at liberty to raise the said issue before the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court would be at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶22

The appellant is granted liberty to move before the appropriate forum/revenue Court within a period of three weeks from now. The interim order dated 20.12.2021 passed by this Court shall remain in existence for a further period of three weeks.

[2023:RJ-JD:19925]

[CFA-56/2021]

(3 of 3)

It is made clear that the said order would remain in existence only for a period of three weeks from now and not subsequent to that.

¶27

In view of the order dated 12.02.2021 been affirmed to the extent of jurisdiction, the present appeal does not survive and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶28

Stay petition and all the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶29

The record be sent back forthwith.

¶30

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶31

46-T.Singh/-

Omprakash v. Satyanarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash v. Satyanarayan

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

Mohd.Niwaj Vs Mukhtyar Singh

Mangilal and Ors. Vs Smt. Mathura Devi and Anr.

Balakchand Vs Sanju Devi

Rameshwari Vs Jina

Gagan Kaushik Vs Shree Ram

Geeta Vs Harsukh Ram