Dismissed

Brij Pal Saroha and 2 Others v. Ashish Saroha and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2022A227/6994/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition under Article 227 dismissed the challenge to the rejection of a plaint filed by parents of minors in a suit for cancellation of sale deed. The Court held that the impugned order did not fall under the exceptions laid down in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and no interference was required.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and was dismissed; no interference required in the impugned order.

Brij Pal Saroha and 2 Others Vs Ashish Saroha and 2… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6994 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Brij Pal Saroha And 2 Others Respondent :- Ashish Saroha And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Alka Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Dhama

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for defendants-petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for defendants-respondents.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are minors in whose name the property in dispute was purchased by grand-mother. Subsequently the said property was sold by grand-mother and the suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed by the plaintiffrespondents. The suit filed for cancellation of sale deed was contested by defendant-petitioners in which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed alleging that as parents of minors are alive, the said suit cannot be filed by Smt. Santresh, claiming to be next friend of plaintiffs. The application was rejected by the trial court against which a revision was preferred which was also dismissed by order dated 28.10.2021.

¶8

Reliance has been placed upon decisions of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Harpal Singh Vs. Heimant Kumar, 2017(9) ADJ 340 and Ram Pratap and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore and Ors., 2018 (11) ADJ 474 .

¶9

Sri Dhama, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are not applicable which has been dealt with by trial court.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, before proceeding to decide the matter, a glance of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 is necessary, which is extracted hereasunder:-

¶11

" 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

¶12

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶13

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being

¶14

required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶15

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶16

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶17

(e) where it is no filed in duplicate;

¶18

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;

¶19

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation of supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

¶20

From reading of provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, it is clear that no case for interference is made out as it does not fall under sub-clause (a) to (f) of Rule 11. The case law referred by learned counsel for petitioners are distinguishable in the facts of the present case.

¶21

After hearing the parties, I find that no interference is required in the impugned orders.

¶22

Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.1.2022 V.S.Singh

Brij Pal Saroha and 2 Others v. Ashish Saroha and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Pal Saroha and 2 Others v. Ashish Saroha and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasant Soni Vs Prashant Trivedi, Special Secretary and Another

Rai Ravindra Kishor Srivastava Vs Sri Anil Kumar Iii,M.D. and 2 Others

District Rural Development Agency Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Addl. Chief Secretary

Brij Pal Saroha and 2 Others Vs Ashish Saroha and 2 Others

Sharda Singh Vs Vijay Kumar Rastogi

Yashpal Singh Vs Rajandevi