Disposed

Smt Gayatri Adil v. Madhu Manwani

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2023CR/64/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to strike out a plaint for limitation and court fee defects. The court found no infirmity at that stage and directed that objections be raised as preliminary issues in the written statement.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to raise objections on limitation and court fee as preliminary issues in the written statement.

Smt Gayatri Adil Vs Madhu Manwani — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Civil Revision No. 64 of 2022

¶5

Smt. Gayatri Adil, Wd/o Late Jitendra Kumar Adil, aged about 61 years.

¶6

Vikram Adil, S/o Late Jitendra Kumar Adil, aged about 40 years.

¶7

Vikas Adil, S/o Late Jitendra Kumar Adil, aged about 36 years.

¶8

All R/o Nayapara Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara City, District Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

---- Applicants/Defendants No. 2 to 4

¶10

Versus

¶11

Madhu Manwani, Wd/o Late Ashok Kumar Manwani, aged about 65 years, R/o Shankar Nagar Bottle house, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.), though Special Power of Attorney Jeet Singh Thakur, S/o Mewalal Thakur, aged about 48 years, R/o Ramsagar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). (Plaintiff/special power of attorney)

¶12

Kshatra Singh Verma, S/o Bhojram Verma, aged about 51 years, R/o village Kodwa, Tahsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶13

(Defendant No. 1)

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Applicants : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Tirky, Adv.

¶17

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

¶18

For Respondent No. 2 : None present, though served and Vakalatnama has also been filed

¶19

¶20

For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer

¶21

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

14-06-2023

¶24

Heard on admission.

¶25

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2021, whereby learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the applicants/defendants No. 2 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 (b)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth “CPC”).

¶26

Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for peremptory right of purchase of suit property, cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction against applicants / defendants No. 2 to 4 and respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 .

¶27

After making their presence, applicants/defendants No. 2 to 4 preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (b)(c) of the CPC stating therein that suit is barred by limitation and also not evaluated properly and the proper court fee has also not been affixed.

¶28

After hearing both the parties, learned Civil Judge, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2022, dismissed the aforesaid application holding therein that the suit is not barred by limitation and further if it is found that suit has not been valued properly and insufficient court fee has been affixed, then it can be directed to comply with, but only on the basis of that, the suit cannot be dismissed prima facie.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants No. 2 to 4

¶30

¶31

would submit that if at the threshold suit is found to be barred by limitation and further it has not been valued properly and insufficient court fee has been affixed, then without going on the merit of the case or commencing further proceedings, suit can be dismissed at the threshold, but this fact has not been considered by the learned Civil Judge, as such, revision may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff and learned Counsel for the State, who is formal party, would support the impugned order.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, it is found that written statement has not been filed yet, which was conceded by learned counsel for the applicants also.

¶34

After considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said prima facie that suit is barred by limitation and also considering the nature of pleading, it also cannot be said at this stage that suit has not been valued property and insufficient court fee has been affixed. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order at this stage. However, liberty is left with applicants/defendants No. 2 to 4 that they may raise all the objections, which they raised in the aforesaid application, in their written statement, thereafter, learned trial Court may frame issues with regard to those objections and decide the same as preliminary issues in accordance with law, if the evidence is not required for the same, and if it is so required, then it can be decided on merits after adducing evidence by both the parties at the time of final conclusion of the trial.

¶35

With the aforesaid directions & observations, the civil revision stands finally disposed of.

¶36

Sd/( N.K.Chandravanshi)

¶37

¶38

Smt Gayatri Adil v. Madhu Manwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gayatri Adil v. Madhu Manwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramphal Verma Vs Praphulla Kumar Behura

Smt. P. Bhagya Laxmi Vs Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi

Vinay Kumar Vs Ganpati

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Mela Ram And Ors.

Janki Bai Vs the Sub Area Manager

Smt. Ishwari (Dead) through Lrs Kola Raju Vs General Manager (Personnel)