Nageshwar Pd. Rai v. Ramnath Rai

Patna HC1 Nov 2025C.Misc./832/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.832 of 2023, decided 01-11-2025 by S. B. Pd. Singh, J.; dismissal of application to set aside Munsif (Sonpur, Saran) order dated 14.03.2023 in Title Suit No. 118 of 2015 refusing rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC grounds; six sub-provisions of Order VII Rule 11; no ground made out by defendant-petitioners; plaint-rejection plea rejected; suit admitted for complete adjudication; respondent-plaintiff absent despite notices.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to state the ground on which the Order VII Rule 11 petition had been filed; although six sub-provisions are enumerated in Order VII Rule 11, no case could be made out under any of them. ¶31

Nageshwar Pd. Rai Vs Ramnath Rai — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.832 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Nageshwar Pd. Rai Son of Late Ramyaudha Rai @ R.A. Prasad Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶4

Surendra Rai @ Surendra Pd. Yadav Son of Late Ramyaudha Rai @ R.A. Prasad Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, DistrictSaran (Chhapra).

¶5

Chandra Bhushan Rai, Son of Late Durga Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶6

Ashok Rai, Son of Late Durga Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶7

Upendra Rai, Son of Late Durga Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶8

Arjun Prasad, Son of Late Baijnath Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶9

Rameshwar Rai, Son of Late Baijnath Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶10

Shanti Kuar, Wife of Late Raghubansh Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbay, P.S. - Driyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶11

... ... Petitioner/s

¶12

Versus

¶13

Ramnath Rai Son of Late Yamuna Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.S. - Dariyarpur, P.O. - Warbey, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶14

Tarkeshwar Rai, Son of Late Shakichand Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶15

Lomrhi Devi, Wife of Dhramnath Rai @ Bimit Buttu Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran Chhapra.

¶16

Vijay Rai, Son of Sudhama Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶17

Sujit Rai (Minor) Son of Sudhama Rai marphat Sudama Rai Son of Oli Karibtar Khairsah, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶18

Jayram Rai Son of Late Jimadari Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶19

Rajesh Rai, Son of Late Jimadari Rai, Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Wrbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶20

Hary Ram Rai Son of Late Jimadari Rai Resident of Village- Idilpur, P.O. - Warbey, P.S. - Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra).

¶21

... ... Respondent/s

¶22

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

¶23

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s	: Mr.Satish Kumar
For the Respondent/s	: Mr.

¶24

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.832 of 2023(4) dt.01-11-2025 2/3

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶27

4 01-11-2025 No one appeared on behalf of the respondent (plaintiff

¶28

therein) despite service of several notices.

¶29

The instant civil miscellaneous application has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the interlocutory order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Munsif, Sonpur Saran in pending Title Suit No. 118 of 2015.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant therein) submits that he had filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit which was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.03.2023.

¶31

During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner fails to state on which ground the said petition has been filed under Order VII Rule 11. Altogether six Subprovisions have been enumerated in Order VII Rule 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner totally fails to make out a case in any of the aforesaid provision.

¶32

In the impugned order, learned Trial Court has rightly held that suit is fit to be admitted for proper and complete adjudication of this case, and accordingly he has rejected the petition filed by the defendant (petitioner herein).

¶33

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.832 of 2023(4) dt.01-11-2025 3/3

¶34