LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-76

AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On September 06, 1996
AJMER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot, whereby an application filed by the defendant for treating issue No. 5 relating to the jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue of jurisdiction is a pure question of law and ought to have been ordered to be decided in the first instance as the defendant petitioner at whose instance this issue had been framed will not lead any evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that in case it is held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter, the entire suit shall stand disposed of.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the land in dispute was taken by the defendant-petitioner on lease and did not vacate thereafter. An order of eviction was passed against him and the writ petition filed against the order of eviction was dismissed and in execution of that order the defendant-respondents took possession. It was thereafter the petitioner filed a petition Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, by producing certain forged and fabricated documents and on the basis thereof the Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, passed an order in favour of the petitioner. In the suit filed by the State of Punjab question of title is involved and once that is so the issue of jurisdiction cannot be treated as a preliminary issue. According to the learned counsel if it is proved that defendant-petitioner has no title to the property, the civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ajit Singh v. Subhagan and Ors. 1969 Current Law Journal 471. It is in this situation learned counsel submitted that the issue of jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue.