GH AHMAD MIR Vs. SHAMIMA
LAWS(J&K)-1999-7-21
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on July 20,1999

Gh Ahmad Mir Appellant
VERSUS
SHAMIMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ORDER dated: 20 -07 -1999 passed by the City Munsiff, Srinagar has been challenged by the parties who are the husband and wife. Revision petition No. 94/ 99 has been filed by Ghulam Ahmad Mir whereas, Revision Petition No. 95/99 has been filed by Mst. Shamima. Both these revision petitions have arisen out of the suit filed by Mst. Shamima against her husband (Ghulam Ahmad Mir) praying that Plot No. 420 measuring 30â„¢ x 50â„¢ situated in Illahibagh colony Bachapora including a house constructed on its portion are her exclusive properties and the petitioner may be perpetually restrained to interfere in her peaceful possession. Consequential relief in the nature of permanent injunction was also sought to the effect that petitioner (Ghulam Ahmad Mir) may be restrained to use any force against her while she is discharging her official duties in SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar, dwelling in the said disputed house or in parental house situated in village Narabal Tehsil Budgam. The averments made in the plaint are that she was duped by the petitioner by marrying her while suppressing his earlier marriage with a living wife. The petitioner is a male nursing attendant in the SKIMS (Srinagar) while respondent is a nurse. The above stated plot was purchased by both of them in half equal shares for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/ -. On the eve of Nikha Nama , the petitioner executed agreement on 30 -0801997 whereby he relinquished his half share in the said plot in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent constructed a house on a portion of the plot from her own finance.
(2.) THE parties married on 31 -12 -1997 and lived happily for some time. Their relations ran into rough weather when at the end of the year of 1998, the parents of the respondent discovered that petitioner had a living wife in his ancestral home in village Trapy where he was oftenly visiting her. The petitioner started maltreating the respondent. He tried to abduct her. Attempts were also made to divest her from possessing the title deed of the plot. All efforts made by the respondent and her parents to have an repprochment ended in vain and all this have a cause of action to the respondent to file the suit which was valued at Rupees Rs.499/ -. The suit was filed in the court of learned District Judge, Srinagar who assigned/transferred the same for trial to the City Munsiff, Srinagar. Petitioner Ghulam Ahmad Mir appeared before the trial court and filed the written statement wherein preliminary objection was raised that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit as the subject matter was immovable property situated within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of Munsiffâ„¢s court, Ganderbal and that court had the jurisdiction to try it.
(3.) ON the pleadings issue of law of preliminary nature was struck. The arguments of the counsel for the parties were heard. The trial court held that Munsiff, Ganderbal had the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, he made a reference to the learned District Judge, Srinagar for passing the appropriate orders. The parties were directed to appear in that court on 23 -07 -1999. They felt aggrieved of the order and both of them have challenged the same by filing above stated revision petitions which shall be disposed of by this common order. In revision petition No. 94/99, it is pleaded that the learned City Munsiff, Srinagar had admitted in the impugned order that he lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit so he ought to have returned the plaint under order 7 Rule 10 CPC to the respondent. He has not done so and as such committed grave error by submitting the suit to the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar for passing the appropriate orders. He has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law by not returning the plaint. Not only that, another illegality was committed when the learned City Munsiff, Srinagar granted interim direction by invoking the inherent jurisdiction vested under section 151 CPC to extent the operation of the interim injunction granted on 06 -05 -1999 till the matter was taken up by the learned District Judge, Srinagar. Such an order could not be passed because learned City Munsiff, Srinagar was not in seisin of the matter as he had staved off himself to try the suit for want of jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, Srinagar has not transferred the suit for trial under Section 24 CPC and in this way no territorial jurisdiction had been vested in the City Munsiff, Srinagar.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.