This court held that no interference was required under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging a suit filed as next friend of minors. The writ petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; no interference required in impugned orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 10
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7004 of 2021
Petitioner :- Brij Pal Saroha And 2 Others Respondent :- Ashish Saroha And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Alka Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for defendants-petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for defendants-respondents.
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.
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 .
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.
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. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(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;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is no filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;
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."
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.
After hearing the parties, I find that no interference is required in the impugned orders.
Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2022 V.S.Singh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging the filing of a suit by a next friend regarding minors.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution to uphold the lower court's rejection of the plaint.
Whether the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC apply to the facts of the present case regarding a suit for cancellation of sale deed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harpal Singh Vs. Heimant KumarDistinguished¶8
Harpal Singh Vs. Heimant Kumar, 2017(9) ADJ 340
Ram Pratap and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore and Ors.Distinguished¶8
Ram Pratap and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore and Ors., 2018 (11) ADJ 474
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brij Pal Saroha
Ashish Saroha
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
