Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 25094 -CII of 2014
(2.) APPLICATION for placing on record Annexures P -16 to P -21, the pleadings of the parties is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The said Annexures are taken on record. C.R. No. 7471 of 2014 Challenge in the present revision petition filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure P -14) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hansi, whereby the plaintiffs -petitioners sought the framing of the below mentioned issue and treating the same as a preliminary issue. The said issue in question reads thus: - - "Whether defendants No. 3 to 5 have purchased the house in dispute as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint alongwith the adjoining house vide sale deed bearing Vasika No. 5229 dated 30.3.2010 from the defendant No. 1 as claimed by defendant No. 3 to 5"? OPD." The reasoning given by the trial Court is that under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, where the jurisdiction of the Court is barred or there is a bar to the suit created by any law, the issue can be treated as a preliminary one. The question of ownership of the house which is in dispute could only be treated after the evidence had come on record and accordingly, reliance upon the observations made in C.R. No. 313 of 2014 decided on 16.01.2014 (Annexure P -12) passed by this Court were held not to be applicable as such since counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the said revision petition. The suit filed by the present petitioners pertain to declaration that they are owners of 4/5th share of the portion of the house shown in red colour in the attached site plan marked with letters ABCD bearing House Tax Unit No. 406B C/5 situated at Lal Sarak, near Rampura, School Hansi and the boundaries are given in the heading of the plaint (Annexure P -16), which are as under: - - "East: Street. West: House of Keshav Kumar. North : House of Rajinder Saini and ors. South : House of Manju Rani."
(3.) CHALLENGE has also been made to a decree dated 08.06.1996 (Annexure P -4) passed by the Court of Sh. S.K. Kaushik, the then Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hansi in Civil Suit No. 479 of 1996 of 24.05.1996 and it is held out that it is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of Rajender Kumar whereas plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are the children who were claiming the right on the property in dispute. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 -Indu sold portion shown in CDEF to Vivek Kumar, Jaswant Singh and Inder Kumar vide sale deed dated 30.03.2010. The mother of Rajender Kumar is alleged to have become owner of 1/4th share of the house on account of the death of her son and she is alleged to have challenged the sale deed dated 30.03.2010 to the extent of 1/4th share being in possession of the entire house. It is alleged that the plaintiff had appeared as witness in the said suit and during that she came to know that defendant No. 1 had procured a judgment and decree on 08.06.1996 whereby, she was declared owner of the house by way of alleged family settlement with Rajender Kumar. It is also pertinent to mention that the specific case of the plaintiff is that after the death of Rajender Kumar on 04.12.1996, she had left the matrimonial house and was staying with her bhabhi at Abohar. Resultantly, the decree is challenged on account of not being registered and she having no pre -existing right etc.;