- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Judge whereby he struck off the pleadings contained in para Nos. 7 and 10 of the plaint and as a consequence thereto issue Nos. 1 and 3 were also struck off.
(2.) THE FACTS :- The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of House No. 193, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. In the plaint, it was stated that he purchased the property vide sale deed dated September 18, 1970. Jagdish Singh was his son and in the sale deed he got it recorded that he would be the owner to the extent of 1/4 share. It was also recorded that Jagdish Singh was only a Benamidar and the real owner was the plaintiff. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Act No. 45 of 1988) (for short the Act) was enacted with a view to prevent people from entering into Benami transactions and section 4 of the said Act provided that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held Benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. When the Act came into force, the defendant filed an application praying that the pleadings regarding Benami nature of the transaction be struck off. The learned trial Judge struck off the pleadings and the issues giving rise to his revision petition. It has been brought to my notice that the plaintiff already led evidence under issue Nos. 1 and 3. It was advisable if the learned Judge had disposed of the suit and should not have hastened to strick off issue Nos. 1 and 3 on the ground that suit cannot be tried concerning Benami nature of the transactions after the enforcement of the Act. The applicability of this Act is excluded to certain transactions which are contained in sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act. The plaintiff can bring this case within the ambit of any of those exceptions but this has to be decided after the parties have concluded evidence and that too when the suit itself is being disposed of. Under the circumstances, I do not think it was proper for the trial Judge to strike down the pleadings contained in para Nos. 7 and 10 of the plaint and as a result thereto the issue arising from those pleadings. The parties have already led evidence on the respective pleas taken by them in the plaint. Learned trial Judge will keep those objections in mind while disposing of the suit. He will dispose of all the issues together and not in piece-meal. Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside and the trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as indicated above. Petition accepted.;