The High Court rejected the revision petition challenging the order of the Additional Civil Judge. The High Court held that the learned trial court correctly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the plaint meaningfully disclosed cause of action and was not barred by law.
The revision petition was rejected.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision No. 40/2017
Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Deshnok, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Mutha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Saraswat, Narendra Thanvi & Mr. M.S. Purohit.
(2 of 5)
[CR-40/2017]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
05/12/2018
Petitioner-defendant, by the instant revision petition, has assailed order dated 07.01.2017, passed by Additional Civil Judge No.3, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned Court below’). By the order impugned, learned Court below rejected petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and perpetual injunction filed by respondent-plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in representative capacity.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit in representative capacity seeking cancellation of sale-deed dated 03.11.1985, which was registered on 07.11.1985 as well as for perpetual injunction, precisely, on the ground that the same is pertaining to Oran land, for which Karni Mata Temple, Deshnok Trust was not authorized. Although, cancellation of the sale-deed of the year 1985 was sought in the year 2016 but it was inter-alia averred in the plaint that respondent-plaintiffs came to know about the sale-deed only in the month of August, 2015. At the behest of respondentplaintiffs, certain facts were also averred showing accrual of cause of action.
Resisting the suit, on behalf of petitioner-defendant, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed, inter-alia, on the ground that plaint is not disclosing cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation. Thus, in the application, petitioner-defendant
(3 of 5)
[CR-40/2017]
has invoked Clause(a) & (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC. The application is contested by respondent-plaintiffs by submitting reply. Learned Court below, after hearing arguments, by the order impugned, rejected the application of petitioner-defendant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other materials available on record.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in case of N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & Ors. vs. Mariyamma(Dead) By Proposed LRs. & Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 548].
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC envisages provision for rejection of plaint at the threshold or at any stage of the suit in the event of availability of any of the grounds set out in the Clause (a) to (f). There remains no quarrel that in the present matter suit was filed by respondent-plaintiffs in representative capacity and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on behalf of petitioner-defendant was submitted with two grounds, viz., non-disclosure of cause of action and suit is barred by law. For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC founded on these two grounds, averments in the plaint are germane and pleas taken in the written statement or the application would be wholly irrelevant.
Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2003) 1 SCC 557], while examining powers of the Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, more particularly with respect to Clause (a) & (d), held:
(4 of 5)
[CR-40/2017]
“A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.”
The same view is further reiterated by the Supreme Court in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 137].
Thus, the obligation of the Court, while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, founded on the aforesaid two grounds, is to read the averments of the plaint in meaningful sense and not formally. Learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, has made sincere endeavor to construe the averments made in the plaint meaningfully and by relying on specific averments made in paras 7, 8 & 12 has found that plaint not only, prima facie, discloses the cause of action but it is also borne out that same is not barred by law. The judgment in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy (supra), on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, is factually distinguishable inasmuch as the Court, while considering application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, has also invoked Order 2 Rule 2 CPC by observing that plaint has been very cleverly drafted. In the present case, admittedly, it is not an adversary litigation but the litigation in representative capacity by respondent-plaintiffs wherein it is disclosed with clarity and precision that they came to
(5 of 5)
[CR-40/2017]
know about execution of sale-deed in the month of August, 2015, and therefore, in that background, learned Court below has rightly declined to invoke Clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC. Likewise, upon reading the plaint as a whole and the paras of plaint, referred to supra, cause of action accrued to the respondentplaintiffs is also clearly discernible, and therefore, on the anvil of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC also, finding of the learned Court below cannot be faulted.
Upon examining the impugned order in totality, in my view, learned Court below has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, while rejecting the application of the petitioner.
Consequently, no case of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out.
Resultantly, the revision petition fails and same is hereby rejected.
47-T.Singh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non-disclosure of cause of action and limitation.
Whether the plaint filed in representative capacity discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & Ors. vs. Mariyamma (Dead) By Proposed LRs. & Ors.Distinguished¶39
(2005) 5 SCC 548 · Who else cites this
Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Relied on¶37
(2003) 1 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors.Relied on¶38
(2004) 3 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Deshnok
Lichhudan s/o Shri Hanuman Dan
State of Rajasthan through Collector, Bikaner
P.K. Lohra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
