S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing his application for rejection of the suit. The learned Single Judge notices that the appellant/defendant's claims for rejection of the suit, encompasses this Court in Delhi and Punjab and that the suit is a suit for partition for properties situated in Delhi as also in Punjab and some of them were agricultural properties. The learned Single Judge considered the application -framed issues, and has pressed his opinion in the following terms: "6. The contention of the applicant/defendant relying upon Section 16 CPC that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction with respect to properties in Punjab is misconceived because of Section 17 CPC which states that where more than one court has jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any one court where anyone immovable property is situated. Applicant/defendant has overlooked the provision of Section 17 CPC. 7. So far as the issue that defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff which is pending in the Court at Punjab and therefore the trial of the present suit should not continue as per Section 10 CPC, it is noted that the defendant has not raised such issue/defence of Section 10 CPC framed when issues were framed on 30.1.2015. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/defendant also concedes that no defence/objection as per Section 10 CPC has been raised in the written statement filed by the defendant. Clearly therefore application beyond the scope of written statement cannot be looked into. So far as properties in Punjab are concerned, as already stated above, if are taken piecemeal for decision of the issues in the suit, the same will result in various decrees and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so in view of the fact that there may be issues with respect to interpretation of various provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it will be appropriate that all the issues are decided together after leading of evidence, and at the stage of final arguments. 8. Dismissed."
(2.) Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant specifically relies upon Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules, Part B, to say that the courts can entertain the suit relating to the dispute as to title and revenue assessed land in a partition proceeding, when the revenue officer declines to determine the question as though he were a Civil Court and, refuses to partition until the question is determined by a competent Court."
(3.) The learned senior counsel also relied upon Section 158 read with Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter "PLR Act") to submit that there is a threshold as to the maintainability of the suit before this Court, as it predominantly involves agricultural land for which local courts initially have exclusive jurisdiction.;