Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate petitioner and Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent. This revision is directed against the order dated

22.05.2012 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Rishikesh, in SCC Suit No.69 of 2011, whereby the applications paper no.30-C and paper no.32-C have been rejected. By way of application paper no.30-C, the relief sought by the revisionist/defendant is that the preliminary issue be framed regarding jurisdiction, maintainability and valuation and application paper no.32-C has been moved with a prayer to reject the affidavit as evidence filed by the plaintiff prior to framing of points of determination. By a perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that on 25.5.2012 the court below fixed the date for framing of issues/points of determination. The court while allowing the application paper no.31-C has held that in SCC suit the points of determination has to be framed on the date of hearing. The court has also held that since the Order 14 Rule 1 C.P.C. is not applicable in proceedings of S.C.C. suits, therefore, there is no reason to frame the issues prior to evidence.

The points of determination can be framed during the course of trial at the time of hearing. 2 Since the court below has fixed the date for framing of issues/points of determination, therefore, no prejudice is caused to be defendant-revisions if the affidavit in support of his case is filed by the plaintiff respondent. So far as the plea of jurisdiction is concerned, according to the revisionist specific plea of jurisdiction has been raised that the suit is barred by Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act. So far as the issue regarding the valuation is concerned, the Court while deciding the application no.30-C found that the suit is properly valid. So far as the argument of the revisionist- defendant is concerned that the issue of jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue, this Court is of the view that while deciding section 23 application, the court below has to decide the incidental title of the landlord.

Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction can be decided at appropriate stage after examining the evidence by the Judge, SCC in accordance with law. In view of the discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, the Court is of the considered view that the orders of the learned trial court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The revision is devoid of merit. The trial court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist on the ground mentioned in the order. With the above observation, the revision is disposed of. Rajni (B.S. Verma, J.) 07.11.2012