Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1714 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lakhami Chand Respondent :- Jagveer Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Mohan Srivastava,V.S. Rajpoot
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed along with which a detailed order passed by the Revisional Court on 22.12.2017 has been brought on record. It is this order which is sought to be impugned in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. By the said order, the Revisional Court has set-aside the order of the trial Court dated 19.4.2017, and has directed it to decide issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6 on merits.
Original Suit No. 1762/2013 was instituted by the petitioner against the defendant respondent for permanent injunction. The Suit was contested by the defendant respondent by filing a written statement. On 21.3.2017, the trial Court on basis of pleadings of the parties framed as many as eight issues. On 19.4.2018, it proceeded to decide issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, as preliminary issues. Out of these, issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6 were to the following effect : -
Issue No. 4 : - Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit;
Issue No. 5 : - Whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950;
Issue No. 6 : - Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.
The trial Court by order dated 19.4.2017 decided all the above issues against the defendant by observing that counsel for the defendant has agreed for those issues being decided against the defendant.
A revision was filed by the defendant contending that his counsel never gave consent for those issues being decided against the defendant. In the alternative, it was contended that the above issues relate to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, and consequently, those issues cannot be decided on basis of consent. The Revisional Court has accepted the contention of the defendant respondent and has allowed the revision by observing that consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction in a Court and these issues are required to be decided on merits.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Order 15, Rule 1 & 3 CPC, which permits the trial Court to decide questions of law and facts on which the parties are not at issue or in regard whereof, no further argument or evidence is to be adduced by pronouncing judgment forthwith.
The aforesaid provisions, in the firm opinion of this Court, would not confer power upon the trial Court to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction on basis of consent or concession of the parties. The trial Court has to independently consider whether it has jurisdiction to try the suit or not, or whether the suit would lie before it or before some other Court, as would be the case, in case, Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 is attracted.
In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the Revisional Court directing the trial Court to decide these issues on merits.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 29.3.2018 AM/-