- (1.) These two revision petitions u/S. 115, C.P.C. involve common question of law and facts and are between the same parties, therefore, for convenience they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for per manentand mandatory injunction before the trial Court against the respondents vide Civil Original Suit No. 9/2001. the suit was posted for recording of evidence on 2-1- 2002. The witness Anant Vyas was present in the Court for his deposition. Earlier to this an application under Order 7, Rules 10 and 11, C.P.C. was filed before the trial Court by the defendant-respondents-Rajasthan Cricket. Association Man Structures Ltd. Jaipur and others, which came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 1-9-1999, against which :defendant-respondents- Rajasthan Cricket Association and others filed S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1247/ 99. The said revision petition came to be dismissed by this Court ort 18-7-2001. While dismissing the revision petition filed by defendant-respondents, the trial Court was directed to frame issues keeping in view the provisions of sub-rule (2) of the Rule 2 of Order 14; C.P.C. and if the trial Court comes to the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the point of law only, It may try that issue as a preliminary issue first if that issue relates to territorial Jurisdiction. In compliance of the order of this Court, the trial Court framed as many as 13 issues. Issues No. 6 and 8 are relevant in these revision petitions.
(3.) The burden to prove both these issues was on Rajasthan Cricket Association- defendant before the trial Court, Issues were franied by the trial Court on 19-10-2001. Original suit was posted for plaintiff-petitioners evidence on 31-10-2001. On this date the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P.C. However, no witness appeared from either side. The matter was adjourned on several dates for the arguments on the said application and ultimately, on 23-11-2001 the trial Court dismissed the said application and the matter was posted for the plaintiffs evidence. Before the evidence of the parties could be recorded, the plaintiff filed a transfer application before the learned District Judge, Balotra on 22-12-2001 seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior division], Barmen It was noticed -by the trial Court that burden to prove issues No. 6 and 8, which were sought to be decided as preliminary Issues, was oh the defendant and the suit has wrongly been posted for plaintiffs evidence and accordingly, the suit was posted for recording of the statement of respondent-defendants witnesses on 2-1-2002. The defendants produced its witness Anant Vyas before the Court. Before the statement of witness Anant Vyas could be recorded, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application that issue No. 8 is only issue which can be decided as a preliminary Issue as the issue raises the point of Jurisdiction of the Court and Issue No. 6 should not be decided along with issue No. 8, The trial Colirt held that issues Nos. 6 and 8 are interlinked and can be decided as preliminary issues and permitted the defendant-respondent to lead evidence. This order has been challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 111/2002-. Prior to this, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 18, Rule 1, C.P.C. on 19-12- 2001. By the said application under Order 18. Rule 1, C.P.C.. the plaintiff-petitioner contended that the burden to prove issue No. 8 was on the defendant-respondent and the defendant respondent has not produced the evidence and, therefore, their evidence be closed. At this stage the trial Court noticed that the suit was wrongly posted for the evidence of the plaintiff on Issues Nos.6 and 8. As a matter of fact, the burden to prove these issues was on the defendant- respondent and instead of closing the evidence of the defendant-respondent, posted the matter for recording of evidence of the defendants witnesses. That order also came to be challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner before this Court in S.B. Civil Revision.Petition No. 119/2002. by order dated 25-1-2002 the record of the trial Court was requisitioned. In compliance of this order, the record of the trial Court has been received. 3A. I haveheard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the orders impugned as also the entire record of the trial Court and the various proceedings taken thereunder.;