Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.). vs Sant Vedprakash Sarvjanik Chikitsalaya, Khatkad Mode,

Prahlad Sahai S/o Shri Hukmaram, R/o Raipur Jagir, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.).

5. Smt. Nanchi Widow Of Shri Hukmaram, R/o Raipur Jagir, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus

1. Sant Vedprakash Sarvjanik Chikitsalaya, Khatkad Mode, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Through Owner Ved Prakash S/o Ishwardas, R/o Mahajukot Pavta, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

2. Ved Prakash S/o Ishwardas, R/o Mahajukot Pavta, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

3. Vikas Shikshan Sanstha Khatkad Mode, Through President Smt. Prem Devi Wife Of Pruanmal, R/o Ajmeri, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

4. Vikas Shikshan Sanstha Khatkad Mode, Through Secretary Pruanmal S/o Sallaram, R/o Ajmeri, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranvijay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravishanker Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 03/02/2025 Order

1. Instant civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by appellants- [2025:RJ-JP:6289] (2 of 5) [CMA-3591/2019] plaintiffs aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019 in Civil Suit No. 14/2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District-Sikar, whereby learned Trial Court instead of deciding all issues framed by Court had decided the oral objection about jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation before Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed, gift-deed and declaration with ancillary relief of permanent injunction, before the Civil Court. He further submits that after completion of pleadings, 5 issues were framed by the Trial Court and both the parties have led their evidence on all issues. He further submits that after concluding arguments on merits after conclusion of trial, the Trial Court instead of deciding issues framed by the trial Court has returned the plaint presuming that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Sections 42 and 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He referred the issues and submitted that no specific issue about lack of jurisdiction by Civil Court was framed by the Trial Court, even if the plaint was returned. He referred the judgment in the case of Narendra Kumar Mittal and Ors. Vs. M/s Nupur Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2020) 20 SCC 158 and submitted that Revenue Court does not have any jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of deed on the ground of fraud and mis- representation. He referred the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Ram Padarth and Ors. Vs. 2nd Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and Ors. 1989 AWC

290. [2025:RJ-JP:6289] (3 of 5) [CMA-3591/2019]

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and he submitted that the plaintiffs were neither khatedar nor a landholder in disputed agricultural land. He further submits that issue of jurisdiction is a legal issue and same can be considered by the Trial Court on its own and there is no need to frame specific issue. He referred the findings and submitted that after considering arguments of both the parties, the Trial Court has rightly decided issue of jurisdiction and returned the plaint. At last, he submitted that if the suit is beyond jurisdiction of civil Court then it is not necessary for the Court to decide all issues.

4. Heard learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgment in case of Narendra Kumar Mittal and Ors. Vs. M/s Nupur Housing Development (Supra) and Ram Padarth and Ors. Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and Ors. (Supra) and perused the material placed on record.

5. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 25.05.2007 and gift deed dated 23.12.1992 for their share in agricultural land. Several grounds including legal incompetency and also fraud and mis-representation were pleadedd in plaint. After completing the pleadings, 5 issues were framed by the Trial Court. Four witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited by plaintiffs. The defendants have examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents.

6. Learned Trial Court after concluding trial, has heard both the parties on merits of the matter but on objection of the counsel for the defendants considered bar in filing of a civil suit in wake of Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The counsel for plaintiffs [2025:RJ-JP:6289] (4 of 5) [CMA-3591/2019] has raised objection that no specific issue was framed, but the Trial Court proceeded to decide the issue of jurisdiction without framing any issue and ruled in favour of the respondent- defendant. Ultimately, ordered that the plaint be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing before the Competent Court.

7. Rule 2 of Order XIV provides that, a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue but where issues both of law and facts arises in same suit then the Court is duty bound to pronounce judgment on all issues. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Mongia Realty and Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manik Sethi in Civil Appeal No. 814/2022 reported as (2022) 3 SCALE 270 while relying upon the judgment in case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557 has observed that when a preliminary issue not decided then the Court is duty bound to decide and pronounce judgment on all issues as contemplated in Rule 2 of Order 14 CPC.

8. Having considered the legal provision, it is clear that issue of jurisdiction was raised during final arguments, after concluding trial and without deciding any issue the Trial Court has dismissed the civil suit and same is contrary to Rule 2 of Order XIV of CPC. In case of Narendra Kumar Mittal and Ors. Vs. M/s Nupur Housing Development (Supra) and Ram Padarth and Ors. Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and Ors. (Supra), it was held that Revenue Court does not have any jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of deed on the ground of fraud and mis-representation.

9. Having considered that the Trial Court has not disposed of the civil suit on all issues framed by it, therefore, the civil [2025:RJ-JP:6289] (5 of 5) [CMA-3591/2019] miscellaneous appeal is liable to allowed and we have no option to except to, remand the matter for decision afresh.

10. In view of the aforesaid, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019 in civil suit No. 14/2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for decision afresh on all issues after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

11. Needles to say that the Trial Court may not be influenced by any opinion expressed by this Court in this instant order or by the Trial Court in order dated 22.05.2019.The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 24th February, 2025.

12. Misc. application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. GAURAV /87 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J