Dismissed

Santram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024A227/4747/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenging rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of a plaint in a declaration and injunction suit, and dismissal of the revision affirming that rejection. Held that only plaint averments are examined; discrepancy in boundaries and concealment of a prior decree are not grounds for rejection. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Santram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68373

¶3

Court No. - 19

¶4

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4747 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Santram

¶6

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 6 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Singh,Akhilendra Kumar Goswami,Harshit Singh,Shweta Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Pradeep Kumar Shukla

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Ahilendra Kumar Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Atul Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the State, Sri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/Gaon Sabha, Sri Indrajeet Shukla, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.3 to 7 and perused the records.

¶10

By means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 09.12.2022, passed in Regular Suit No.1481 of 2003 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/FTC-II, Gonda, whereby the petitioner's application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 04.09.2024, passed in Revision No.16 of 2023 by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-II, Gonda, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 09.12.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge has been affirmed.

¶11

The opposite parties have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and perpetual injunction claiming that they have

¶12

purchased the property in dispute through a registered sale deed and the petitioner is creating hindrance in their enjoyment of the property in dispute.

¶13

The petitioner has filed a written statement in the suit and thereafter he filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The opposite parties have stated that the plaint does not disclose the title of the plaintiffs, the pleadings are incomplete and misleading and it has been filed without seeking permission of the court and under a conspiracy. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The application was not supported by any affidavit.

¶14

The learned trial court found that in para 5 of the plaint the plaintiffs have submitted that the defendant is disputing the title of the plaintiffs and therefore a cause of action has accrued. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶15

In revision, the learned Additional District Judge also found that there is no ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) (d) C.P.C. and there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court.

¶16

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are major concealment of facts in the plaint. He submitted that there is some discrepancy in the boundaries of the land in dispute given in the plaint and those given in the site plan forming a part of the plaint.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the dispute between the parties has already stands finally decided by a previous decree, which has been concealed while

¶18

filing the suit.

¶19

Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. provides as follows:

¶20

"O.7. R.11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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;

¶23

(c)where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned 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;

¶24

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

¶25

(e)[where it is not filed in duplicate;] [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Section 17 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002).]

¶26

(f)[ where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Section 8, for sub-Clauses (f) and (g)(w.e.f. 1.7.2002)(as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Section17 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002).]

¶27

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper 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 form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper , 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.] [Added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 72 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).]"

¶28

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) C.P.C.

¶29

where it does not disclose any cause of action. Under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. a plaint can be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The plaintiffs have stated that they have purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed and that the defendant is creating hindrance in enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the plaint discloses a cause of action and it cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶30

Under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. a plaint can be rejected where the suit appears " from the statement in the plaint'' to be barred by any law. For rejecting a plaint under the aforesaid provisions merely statements made in the plaint have to be examined. The statement in defence cannot be examined for deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶31

A mere discrepancy in the description of boundaries of the property in dispute given in the plaint and in the site plan, does not attract any of the clauses of Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. Concealment of fact regarding any previous decree is also not a ground as while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. the court is merely required to examine the averments made in the plaint itself.

¶32

In case any fact has been concealed, that can be brought to the court's notice by the defendants by filing a written statement and giving an evidence in support thereof, which will be decided at the appropriate stage. It will not give rise for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶33

Although, it is stated in the application that the suit has wrongly been filed without seeking permission of the court, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any

¶34

provision of law under which the plaintiff was required to obtain leave of the court before filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that gaon sabha has not been impleaded as a party in the suit. From the pleadings contained in the plaint it does not appear that the gaon sabha is a necessary party to the suit. In case the gaon sabha is a necessary or proper party, this plea can be raised before the learned trial court at the appropriate stage and this plea is also not required to be examined while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned orders dated 09.12.2022 and 04.09.2024. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶37

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶38

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 Ram.

¶39

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Khelavan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Abdul Kadir Alias Kadir Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) District Gonda and 8 Others

Shiv Nath and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Another

Ram Prakash Giri Vs Rakesh Giri and 7 Others

Santram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others