Violation of Principles of Natural Justice is a Valid Ground for Civil Court’s Jurisdiction: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea for Rejection of Plaint

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the maintainability of a civil suit against partition proceedings, holding that a civil suit is maintainable when allegations of violation of natural justice are raised. Justice Vikas Bahl, while rejecting the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in Civil Revision No. 499 of 2025, ruled that "when a challenge is made to the partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the same cannot be stated to be hit by the provisions of Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887."

The case originated from a civil suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) challenging partition proceedings, claiming that they were conducted without proper notice, in violation of natural justice, and behind their backs without an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners, Guraditta Singh @ Guranditta Singh and another, moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which explicitly prohibits civil suits against partition proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities. The Trial Court dismissed this application, leading the petitioners to file a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Trial Court’s decision before the High Court.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the civil suit was barred by law, and the Trial Court erred in not rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It was further argued that partition proceedings before revenue authorities have a statutory bar against civil court interference.

The High Court, however, upheld the Trial Court’s decision, affirming that the civil suit was maintainable. Justice Vikas Bahl observed that "it is not in dispute that in the civil suit, the plaintiffs/respondents have challenged the partition proceedings primarily on the ground that the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice and that they were wrongly proceeded against ex parte. The Court further noted that the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that they were not properly served with summons, and no Mustri Munadi (public notice in the village) had been carried out, making the entire proceedings illegal."

Relying on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's precedent in Joginder Singh v. Pritam Singh & Others, Civil Revision No. 6186 of 2018 (decided on 19.07.2023), the Court reiterated that "when there is a violation of principles of natural justice, then the same is one of the grounds on which the Civil Court can exercise its jurisdiction."

Referring to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court reaffirmed the legal principle that "for the purpose of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the pleadings in the plaint are to be seen. Since the plaint in the present case alleges a violation of natural justice, the question of maintainability becomes a matter of trial." The Court thus ruled that "the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was justified."

Additionally, the Court took note of the plaintiffs' claims regarding discrepancies in land allocation and their prayer for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with their possession. The Court held that "since issues related to title and possession were also involved, the civil suit was maintainable."

Dismissing the revision petition, the Court concluded: "Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. The present revision petition, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed." The Court also clarified that its observations were not to be construed as a final expression on the merits of the case and were only for the adjudication of the revision petition.

Thus, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed the principle that civil courts retain jurisdiction in partition matters where violations of natural justice are alleged, ensuring that procedural fairness is upheld.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2025