2001 (6) TMI 828 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules revision petition maintainable under Section 115, quashing judgment and decree in Title Suit.

The Court found the revision petition maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC, ruling that the Trial Court erred in deciding the case under Section 90 ... - Issues:Challenge to impugned order under Section 115 of CPC, Maintainability of Civil Revision, Registration of cases under Section 90 of CPC, Jurisdictional error in deciding the case, Compliance with Order XXXVI of CPC.Challenge to Impugned Order under Section 115 of CPC:The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.5.1994 passed by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 13 of 1994 (Special Case) under Section 115 of the CPC. The respondent, Notified Area Authority, Kailashahar, filed a case under Section 90 of the CPC seeking the opinion of the Court. The petitioner, being a plaintiff, filed a petition under Section 90 as well, seeking resolution of a land dispute. The Trial Court appointed a Survey Commissioner, heard arguments, and decreed the suit. The petitioner contended that the remedy was a regular appeal, but the Court found the revision petition maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC.Maintainability of Civil Revision:The respondent argued that the petitioner should have filed a regular appeal instead of a revision petition. However, the Court found the revision maintainable as the Trial Court decreed the suit under Section 90 of the CPC, falling under Order XXXVI. The Court ruled that the revision was the appropriate remedy in this case.Registration of Cases under Section 90 of CPC:The petitioner argued that the Trial Court should have registered 13 separate cases under Section 90 of the CPC instead of consolidating them into one. Each agreement was executed separately, involving different lands and parties. The Court found that individual agreements should have been treated as separate cases, even if tried analogously. The revision petition filed by the present petitioner was deemed maintainable as he was concerned only with his land, not the others.Jurisdictional Error in Deciding the Case:The main issue was whether the Trial Court erred in deciding the case under Section 90 of the CPC. The Court examined the provisions of Section 90, Section 2(16), and Order XXXVI rules 2 and 3. It was found that the agreements did not comply with the rules of Order XXXVI, specifically regarding the estimated value of the property. As the agreements were not framed in accordance with the rules, the Court should not have assumed jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the Trial Court acted without jurisdiction, and the judgment and decree were quashed.Compliance with Order XXXVI of CPC:The Court emphasized that for the Court to assume jurisdiction under Section 90 of the CPC, the agreement must comply with Order XXXVI rules. The agreements in this case did not contain the estimated value of the property, as required by rule 2. Without fulfilling this requirement, the Court should not have assumed jurisdiction. The Court found that the Trial Court's assumption of jurisdiction was illegal, leading to the quashing of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 13 of 1994.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Court's reasoning for quashing the impugned judgment and decree.