Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4769 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Urmila Devi Respondent :- Smt. Ramshri Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Raghav Pandey,Ram Kishore Pandey Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks to question the validity of the order dated 30.5.2018 passed by the trial court deciding issues no.3 and 8 as well as the order of the revisional court dated 25.3.2019 dismissing the revision.
The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for rectification of registered sale deed dated 4.2.2014 executed by Chhote Lal in her favour. The suit was under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The rectification sought was that in place of Akhtiyarpur @ Iknaura, it should be mentioned as Akhtiyarpur.
The petitioner claims herself to be daughter of Chhote Lal, executant of the instrument, of which rectification is being sought. The petitioner contended that in consolidation proceedings, she had been adjudged to be daughter of Late Chhote Lal and her name has been mutated in the revenue records. Consequently, the suit is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to petitioner, the Consolidation courts have full powers to ignore a void document. They have also done so. Consequently, the plaint is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
The courts below have observed that the power to direct rectification of a registered document is in the exclusive domain of civil court. They have also taken note of the observations made in the orders of the Consolidation authorities that they cannot order rectification of document, as such power lies with the civil court. The trial court has held that it has full jurisdiction to try the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the consolidation courts have already recorded a finding that the petitioner is daughter of Late Chhote Lal but which issue has again been raised by the plaintiff-respondent in the instant suit, consequently, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in view of Section 11 CPC.
In case, any such finding has been returned by the consolidation courts, it is always open to the petitioner to raise plea of res judicata before the civil court on the said aspect. It will then be decided after framing on issue in that regard. However, it cannot be said that the suit for rectification of registered sale deed would not lie before civil court nor the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in absence of any specific bar under any law.
Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders to warrant interference. The petition is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 26.7.2019 SL