Dismissed¶25

Binod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Kumar Singh v. Deonandan Prasad Singh

Patna HC12 Jan 2024C.R./14/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court Civil Revision No.14 of 2020, decided 12-01-2024 by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey; dismissed. Keywords: Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; disclosure of cause of action; no extraneous material beyond plaint; threat of dispossession dated 15.04.2018 (para-12 of plaint); cancellation of sale deed; registering authority lacking jurisdiction; Sub-Judge Ballia, Begusarai order dated 14.10.2019; Binod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Kumar Singh (defendant/petitioner) versus Deonandan Prasad Singh (plaintiff/opposite party); counsel Rajesh Sinha and Binod Kumar.

What did the court decide?

While considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint can be looked into; no extraneous material is permissible. ¶19

Binod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Kumar Singh Vs Deonandan Prasad Singh — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action so as to justify its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's Order VII Rule 11 application.

¶15

Court's answer

While considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint can be looked into; no extraneous material is permissible.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The plaint explicitly disclosed the cause of action: para-12 of the plaint recorded that the cause of action arose on 15.04.2018 when the petitioner/defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed land; accordingly, the order under revision did not require interference.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision No.14 of 2020, High Court of Judicature at Patna (CAV order dated 12-01-2024), Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J. The defendant-petitioner, Binod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Kumar Singh, challenged the order dated 14.10.2019 of the learned Sub-Judge, Ballia, Begusarai, whereby his application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint filed by plaintiff Deonandan Prasad Singh was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action since the plaintiff himself admitted that the sale deed underlying his claim had been cancelled. The Court reiterated that in considering an Order VII Rule 11 petition, except the plaint, no extraneous material can be looked into. Relying on para-12 of the plaint, which stated that the cause of action arose on 15.04.2018 when the defendant gave a threat of dispossession, the Court found that the plaint explicitly disclosed the cause of action; it further noted the plaintiff's averment that the registering authority had no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed. Since the plaint disclosed the cause of action, the trial court's order required no interference, and the civil revision application was dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.14 of 2020

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Binod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Kumar Singh Son of Subhuklal Singh Resident of Sanha Naya Tola, Post Office- Bakhadda, District- Begusarai, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal.

¶4

... ... Defendant 1^st party/Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deonandan Prasad Singh Son of Late Achmbhit Prasad Singh Resident of Sanha Naya Tola, Post Office- Bakhadda, District- Begusarai, P.S.Sahebpur Kamal

¶7

... ..Plaintiff/Opposite party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binod Kumar ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶9

CAV ORDER

¶10

13 12-01-2024

¶11

I have already heard the parties.

¶12

This civil revision is directed against the order

¶13

dated 14.10.2019, passed by learned Sub-Judge, Ballia, Begusarai, whereby the petition of the petitioner/defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), was rejected

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶15

that from bare perusal of the plaint itself it appears that it does not disclose the cause of action. The plaintiff himself admitted in the plaint that the sale deed, on which he was claiming his right and title, was cancelled and on the basis of cancelled sale deed, no right, title or possession can be claimed. He submitted

¶16

Patna High Court C.R. No.14 of 2020(13) dt.12-01-2024 2/3

¶17

further that the learned trial court committed illegality in refusing the application of the petitioner/defendant, whereby a prayer was made to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code.

¶18

The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the plaintiff has specifically stated in para-12 of the plaint that the cause of action arose on 15.04.2018 when the defendant/first party gave threat of dispossession to the plaintiff.

¶19

It is a settled principle of law that for considering a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, except the plaint, no extraneous material can be looked into.

¶20

In para-12 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically mentioned that the cause of action arose on 15.04.2018 when a threat was given to him by the petitioner/defendant to dispossess him from the land in dispute. It appears that the plaint explicitly disclosed the cause of action. So far as the cancellation of sale deed is concerned, though the plaintiff/opposite party has mentioned in the plaint that the registering authority had no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed and the order of the registering authority is without jurisdiction.

¶21