Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Kulshrestha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24.2.1995 passed by Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut and the order dated 24.3.1995 whereby the revision of the petitioner has been summarily rejected by the District Judge, Meerut.
(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in a suit filed by the respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent the petitioner made an application for impleadment wherein he has stated that the petitioner is owner of the premises in question and the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 is collusive and not maintainable and it has been filed only to grab the property of the petitioner. The impleadment application of the petitioner was allowed and therefore he made an application paper No. 67 -ga praying that a preliminary issue be framed with respect to the fact that the respondent No. 3 has no title over the property in dispute. The Judge Small Cause Court by the impugned order has rejected the said application on the ground that if there is dispute of title between the parties the Court could have no jurisdiction to proceed with the case and there is no question of framing any preliminary issue. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been rejected on the ground that since the impugned order is an interlocutory order therefore no revision is maintainable against the same. An interim order dated 5.5.1995 was passed whereby further proceeding in the suit has been stayed. It has been stated in the writ petition that there are other suits pending between the parties for injunction as also for adjudication with respect to ownership of the property in question. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in case the Small Causes Court comes to the conclusion that a serious dispute of title is there then it would have no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and it could only return the plaint for being presented to the proper Court. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Harnam Singh v. District judge and others, 2001 (43) ALR 274 and Radhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad and others : 1988 AWC 1057 (SC) and has contended that when a suit involving the question of title is filed before Small Causes Court the plaint ought to have been returned to be presented before the proper Court having jurisdiction to decide the title. In the present case, as argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was admittedly impleaded as a defendant and was a contesting party in the suit. The petitioner claims that the property in question belongs to him and the respondent No. 4 was a tenant of the petitioner. He had therefore made an application that respondent No. 3 who was plaintiff in the suit has no title nor he was landlord and therefore the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the aforesaid suit. This contention appears to have merit. It is settled law that the suits involving questions of title can be decided only by the Courts having jurisdiction to determine title. The Small Cause Courts can only look in the question of title incidentally and when questions of title are raised and involved in such a suit the plaint has to be returned for presentation before a Court competent to adjudicate disputes of title. In the present case the petitioner claims that the property belongs to him and the rent was being paid to him. The respondent No. 3 had no iota of right or interest in the property and that the suit was a collusive suit for the purpose of grabbing the property of the society. In the counter -affidavit the respondent No. 3 has claimed to be owner by virtue of a sale deed of 1971. However, neither any copy of the sale deed has been brought on record nor there is any such reason given in the impugned order. In case the respondent No. 3 claimed ownership by virtue of a sale deed he ought to have brought it on record and contested the application of the petitioner on that ground. In the absence of any such evidence the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.2.1995 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide the application paper No. 67 -ga filed by the petitioner in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts and whether it was applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. No order is passed as to costs.;