Case: LT COL. PARAMJIT SINGH DHILLON Vs. HARINDER SINGH GHUMAN

dated 15 th April, 2017 that came to be challenged in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of the defendant Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman which also came to be dismissed after assigning cogent and valid reasons under Order dated 4 th April, 2018.17. Both the learned counsels have supported their respective pleas and so far as the application filed in the pending suit in the Delhi High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, learned counsel for Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman submits that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is not applicable as the area where the subject property is situated has been ?urbanised? under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The Delhi Land Reforms Act would only be applicable to the lands which are rural in nature and after issuance of a notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 dated 23 rd May, 1963, the subject land ceased to be rural land and has been declared ?urbanised? which is not under the jurisdiction of the Land Reforms Act.18. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where more than one court has a jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any one Court where any one immovable property is situated and further submits that Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 will not have any application from the relief which she has claimed in the suit filed for partition of the estate of late Shri K.S. Dhillon in the High Court of Delhi.19. So far as the Civil Appeal @ SLP( C ) No. 22118 of 2018 preferred by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman is concerned, learned counsel submits that the additional issues which were framed as 3A and 3B goes into the root of the matter and if such issues are decided first as the preliminary issue, further issues which are framed may not require any adjudication.20. Per contra, learned counsel for Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon submits that the application which he filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court of Delhi has exceeded its jurisdiction in taking note of the written statement. To the contrary, at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is the plaint which alone is to be looked into as to whether the suit is barred by law but the High Court of Delhi has looked into the written statement to non-suit his claim for rejectment of the suit plaint and submits that so far as the objection raised by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman to decide additional issues 3A and 3B as the preliminary issues in the first instance, cogent reasons have been assigned by the trial Judge and confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment. That apart, the additional issues framed certainly have to be looked into on the basis of the evidence on record and the matter is at its advanced stage, in the given facts and circumstances, confining the additional issues to be answered at the first instance will delay the proceedings and this what the High Court has observed in the order impugned.21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the view that both the appeals are without substance and deserves to be dismissed for the reason that in the suit for partition filed at the instance of Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the High Court of Delhi, while examining the application filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, cogent reasons have been assigned by the Single Judge of the High Court in the first instance and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal preferred at the instance of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon and we are in agreement of the view expressed and does not call for our interference.22. So far as the plea raised by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the pending suit before the SBS Nagar, Punjab is concerned, the trial Judge has taken note of the facts in detail and arrived to the conclusion that no useful purpose will be served in taking additional issues 3A and 3B as the preliminary issues taking note of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2012 and proceedings could not have been followed up further because of the interim applications being filed one after the other and there is a direction of the High Court to dispose of the pending suit expeditiously, in the given circumstances, the trial Judge felt it appropriate that the matter be decided along with the other issues pending adjudication and that view has been confirmed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction assigning cogent reasons. We are of the view that the reasons assigned are unassailable.23. We do not find any substance in the civil appeals on merits but looking into the peculiar facts which has been brought to our notice that for the self-same subject property, suit for partition bearing no. CS(OS) No. 373 of 2012 has been filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the original side of Delhi High Court and at the same time, suit has been filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, SBS Nagar, Punjab seeking declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession of the properties indicated in the suit plaint on the basis of the will of late Shri K.S. Dhillon. The plea on which rights have been claimed by the parties inter se may be different but the subject property being the same and parties are the legal heirs of late Shri K.S. Dhillon, to avoid conflicting views and multiplicity of litigation, it has been considered that both the matters be clubbed and be heard together.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the view that both the appeals are without substance and deserves to be dismissed for the reason that in the suit for partition filed at the instance of Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the High Court of Delhi, while examining the application filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, cogent reasons have been assigned by the Single Judge of the High Court in the first instance and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal preferred at the instance of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon and we are in agreement of the view expressed and does not call for our interference.22. So far as the plea raised by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the pending suit before the SBS Nagar, Punjab is concerned, the trial Judge has taken note of the facts in detail and arrived to the conclusion that no useful purpose will be served in taking additional issues 3A and 3B as the preliminary issues taking note of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2012 and proceedings could not have been followed up further because of the interim applications being filed one after the other and there is a direction of the High Court to dispose of the pending suit expeditiously, in the given circumstances, the trial Judge felt it appropriate that the matter be decided along with the other issues pending adjudication and that view has been confirmed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction assigning cogent reasons. We are of the view that the reasons assigned are unassailable.23. We do not find any substance in the civil appeals on merits but looking into the peculiar facts which has been brought to our notice that for the self-same subject property, suit for partition bearing no. CS(OS) No. 373 of 2012 has been filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the original side of Delhi High Court and at the same time, suit has been filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, SBS Nagar, Punjab seeking declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession of the properties indicated in the suit plaint on the basis of the will of late Shri K.S. Dhillon. The plea on which rights have been claimed by the parties inter se may be different but the subject property being the same and parties are the legal heirs of late Shri K.S. Dhillon, to avoid conflicting views and multiplicity of litigation, it has been considered that both the matters be clubbed and be heard together.