Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.08.2011 Raj Bahadur Sarot ......Petitioner Versus Ridhi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Ridhi, unfortunate minor daughter of 4 years-respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P-1), for a decree of possession by way of partition, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining her father Raj Bahadur Sarot-petitioner- defendant(for short “the defendant”), from alienating the suit property, in any manner. 2. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement (Annexure P-2) and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues, for proper adjudication of the case:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by partition of the properties detailed in para No.3 to the extent of ½ share?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for putting in actual physical and exclusive possession of said property on partitioning the same by metes and bounds?OPP 3. If issue Nos.1 & 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 2 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees?OPD 8. Relief.” 4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant moved an application (Annexure P-3) under Order 14 Rules 1, 2 & 5 read with Section 151 CPC, for framing the following additional issues:- “(i) Whether the plaintiff is represented by her natural/legal guardian as defined under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act?OPP (ii) Whether plaintiff through her mother can maintain the present suit for partition against her father to interfere in alleged undivided interest of minor in coparcenary property?OPP (iii) Whether the properties mentioned in para No.3 of the plaint are coparcenary properties?OPP” and treating the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit, as preliminary issue. 5. The trial Court dismissed the application of the defendant, by means of impugned order dated 23.02.2011. 6. Not only that, the defendant again moved an application for review of the earlier impugned order dated 23.02.2011, which was dismissed as well by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 12.05.2011. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned decisions of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the trial Court Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 3 ought to have framed the additional issues and treated the issue of maintainability of the suit, as preliminary issue, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Jagdev Singh Versus Sardarni Prem Parkash Kaur, 2002(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 783, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, while dismissing the revision petition, it was observed that there was nothing on record(therein), which may indicate that the issues with regard to limitation, maintainability, court fees and res judicata, are not the issues of law and there is no impediment in treating and deciding such issues, as preliminary issues. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner-defendant in the present controversy. 10. As is evident from the record that, initially in the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as eight issues and issue No.4 is with regard to the maintainability of the suit. The controversy raised by the petitioner- defendant, can effectively be adjudicated upon under the existing issues, already framed by the trial Court. Sequelly, as to whether the property is co-parcenary, self-acquired property or otherwise in the hands of the defendant, would be a moot point to be decided by the trial Court, which can only be considered after the parties produced their evidence in this respect. Moreover, the issue of maintainability of the suit, cannot possibly be decided in the absence of any evidence on record. 11. Therefore, to my mind, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner-defendant in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 4 are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 5 C.M.No.19716-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.4937 of 2011 Present: Mr.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE