Pursuant to Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint in a suit for declaration of title to temple property, finding no reason to differ with the lower court.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4298 of 2017
------
.... .... …. Petitioners
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
07/06.09.2019 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
This writ application is directed against the order dated 17.01.2017 passed in Title Declaration Suit No. 41 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Deoghar whereby the petition preferred by the petitioners-defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
The respondent no.1 herein being the plaintiff had filed Title Declaration Suit No. 41 of 2014 in which a prayer was made for a declaration of Schedule-A property of the plaint as a trust property and the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and title holders and therefore, they are
2.
legally entitled to hold the property and thus, the defendants have no right, title and interest over the said property.
The defendants on being noticed have appeared and filed their written statement. During pendency of the suit an application was preferred by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint which application, however, was rejected on 17.01.2017. In the order dated 17.01.2017 it appears that none of the ingredient which is necessary to be satisfied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 have been highlighted by the petitioners-defendants and in such circumstances, therefore, the learned court below did not find any reason for non-rejection of the plaint in terms of the aforesaid provisions.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to differ with the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Deoghar. This writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J . )
VK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the Civil Judge was sustainable when the petitioner failed to satisfy any ingredient for rejection?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order in the title declaration suit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Nath Sanyal and Ors.
Lord Shiva Temple at Red Cot House, Deoghar through Nirmal Chand Dutta and Ors.
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
