http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3867 of 2001

PETITIONER: RAJENDER SINGH

RESPONDENT: VIJAY PAL @ JAI PAL & ORS.                                

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R NON-REPORTABLE

1.      This appeal is directed against the judgment and order           dated 5th of February, 2001 passed by a learned judge of the  High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No.112 of 1996  whereby the High Court had allowed a second appeal filed by  the respondent No.1 and set aside the judgments and decrees  of dismissal dated 29th of January, 1996     and 20th of July,  1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi and the Senior Civil  Judge, Delhi, being the first appellate court, respectively. 2.      The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 had instituted the suit  before the Civil Judge, Delhi for declaration and injunction in  respect of the suit property and for other incidental reliefs. In  the said suit, a preliminary issue was framed to the extent that  in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in  short \021the Act\022), the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain  the suit was barred. Both the courts below held that the civil  court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar  imposed under Section 185 of the Act. The High Court, in  second appeal against the judgments of the courts below,  held that in view of the nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit,  the jurisdiction of the civil court was not hit by section 185 of  the Act. Accordingly, the judgments of the two courts below  were upset by the High Court by the impugned judgment and  the trial court was directed to decide the suit on all other  issues on merits. Feeling aggrieved, the instant special leave  petition has been filed, in respect of which leave has already  been granted. 3.      We have heard Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel  appearing for the appellant and Mr. Namboodiri, the learned  counsel appearing for the respondents. We have examined  the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as of the  courts below. The High Court in the impugned judgment held  that Section 185 of the Act could not be applied in view of the  nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit and therefore, the suit  shall be heard on merits on the other issues. In view of the  stand taken by us, as noted hereinafter, and considering the  facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made  in the plaint, we are, prima facie, satisfied that this appeal can  be disposed of by directing the trial court to decide the suit not  only on the other issues on merits but also on the issue  regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit  in view of section 185 of the Act. 4.      Such being the stand taken by us at this stage, we are  not going into the merits of the judgment of the High court as  well as of the courts below. The trial court shall now

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

commence the trial of the suit and decide the same on merits  on all issues, including the issue whether the civil court has  the jurisdiction to try the said suit in view of the bar of Section  185 of the Act. While deciding the suit, the trial court shall not  be influenced by any of the observations made by us or in the  impugned judgment by the High Court or by the courts below.  The trial court shall decide the suit within a year from the date  of communication of this order to it. With this modification in  the order of the High Court, the appeal is thus disposed of.  There will be no order as to costs.