L.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT no.1 Harmesh Kumar Jain has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar.
(2.) RESPONDENT no.1 ­ plaintiff Ravinder Kumar Jain has filed suit against defendant no.1 ­ petitioner and proforma respondents no.2 to 5 in the Civil Court at Rupnagar for partition of four properties i.e. one property situated at Rupnagar and three properties situated at Chandigarh. Defendant no.1 moved application (Annexure P-4) for dismissing the suit qua properties no.2 to 4 because the same are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Rupnagar. Respondent no.1 ­ plaintiff, by filing reply, opposed the said application. The trial court, vide order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-6), allowed the said application and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11-D of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ­ CPC) qua properties no. 2 to 4 situated at Chandigarh. Appeal against order Annexure P-6 of the trial court, preferred by plaintiff, has been allowed by learned lower appellate court vide impugned judgment Annexure P-7 and thereby, order Annexure P-6 passed by the trial court has been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge judgment Annexure P-7 passed by the lower appellate court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the plaint was rejected by the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, which amounts to decree, as defined in Section 2 (2) CPC. Consequently, the impugned judgment would be appealable and the instant revision petition would not lie.;