IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2812 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision:- 11.08.2009. Satpal and another ...Petitioners Versus Kritika @ Komal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. M.K. Gahlaut, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. A.N.JINDAL J. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sonepat wherein an application filed by the petitioners-defendants for rejecting the plaint was dismissed. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and grant of maintenance under Section 18 and 21 read with Section 23 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. The counsel for the defendants while putting in appearance moved an application for dismissing the petition taking the grounds that the property is situated within the jurisdiction of courts at Delhi, therefore, the Court at Sonepat has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The factual background of the case is that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and grant of maintenance under Section 18 and 21 read with Section 23 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. Admittedly the property regarding which the declaration has been sought by the respondents is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, whereas Civil Revision No.2812 of 2009 -2- suit for maintenance could be filed at Sonipat. As a matter of fact no petition for declaration was to be filed whereas only the suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act could be filed for claiming, right title or interest in the property but that was not done. Despite the fact that the court could see about the maintainability of the suit on account of the mis-joinder of causes of action at the very first instance, the court without taking into consideration the mis-joinder and causes of action, has dismissed the application by taking into consideration that suit for maintenance could be filed within territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Sonipat but the court did not examine the maintainability aspect of the suit for declaration filed by way of petition which had nothing to do with the suit under the Adoption and Maintenance Act. Resultantly, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the court to decide the application by taking into consideration the mis-joinder of causes of action, the territorial jurisdiction, maintainability of the suit and the court fee. August 11, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) vj JUDGE