In this civil revision petition, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the challenge to an order rejecting a defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court held that the plaint discloses a cause of action and correctly dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Revision petition and stay application 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision No. 49/2017
Ram Singh Saini S/o Shri Sohan Lal Saini, Village Daduka, Teh. Kotputli Distt. Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Judgment / Order
23/10/2018
(2 of 4)
[CR-49/2017]
O.7 R.11 CPC.
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any
(3 of 4)
[CR-49/2017]
cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
5. In para 3 of the plaint, it has been averred as under:
;g fd izfroknh oknhx.k dks mDr Hkw[k.M ls csn[ky dj] Hkw[k.M dks [kqnZ cqnZ djus dh fQjkd esa gS] blh vuqdze esa fnukad 26-04-15 dks izfroknh] vtuch O;fDr;ksa dks oknhx.k ds mDr Hkw[k.M ij ysdj vk;k rFkk tcju dCtk djus dh /kedh nh] oknh la[;k 3 }kjk iwNrkN djus ij izfroknh us tkfgj fd;k fd og lEifr dk cspku dj jgk gS rFkk og tcju oknhx.k dks lEifr ls csn[ky djds jgsxkA oknh la[;k 3 }kjk izfroknh ls fuosnu fd;k x;k fd mudh fjgk;’k ds fy;s] mDr lEifRr ds vykok] vU; dksbZ lEifr ugh gS rFkk uk gh dksbZ oSdfYid O;oLFkk gS rks] izfroknh cStk ukjkt gks x;k rFkk /kedh nh fd og rks vius eulwcksa dks iw.kZ djds gh ne ysxk] vMkSlh&iMkSlh tks oknhx.k ds ifjokj ds gh lnL; gS] ds ]}kjk chpcpko djus ij] izfroknh rRle; 'kkar gks x;k] ijUrq og yxkrkj oknhx.k dks csn[ky djus rFkk lEkfRr dks [kqnZ cqnZ djus dh /kedh ns jgk gS] blfy, mDr okni= Jhekuth ds le{k is’k djuk vko’;d gqvk gSA
6. Thereafter in para 6 it has been further averred:
;g fd mDr okn dk okndkj.k okni= dh en la[;k 3 esa of.kZrkuqlkj fnukad 26-04-15 dks mRiUu gksdj vkt rd fujUrj tkjh gS rFkk okndkj.k mRiUu gksus dh frfFk ls okni= vUnj fe;kn Jhekuth ds le{k is’k gSA
(4 of 4)
[CR-49/2017]
application which does not required any interference in this
revision petition.
dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J
//bmg 45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the defendant's application to reject the plaint under Section 144 CrPC (referred to here as O.7 R.11 CPC) requires interference.
Whether the plaint filed by the respondents discloses a cause of action despite the petitioner's claim of valid purchase.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Singh Saini
Naveen Saini
Meera Devi
Shankar Lal Saini
Banwari Lal Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
