Dismissed

Santosh and Ors. v. Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2018CR/52/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Jaipur dismissed a revision petition challenging the Additional District Judge's order rejecting an application to dismiss a civil suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that the alleged defects, such as lack of Section 80 CPC notice and tenancy restrictions under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, were defensive matters not present in the plaint and thus not decidable at that stag

What did the court decide?

Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Order 10 CPC dismissed; Revision petition dismissed; Stay application dismissed.

Santosh and Ors. Vs Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision No. 52/2017

¶4

Santosh S/o Shri Gyarsa, B/c Chamar , R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶5

Mohan S/o Shri Gyarsa, B/c Chamar , R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶6

Surendra S/o Shri Gyarsa B/c Chamar , R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶7

Lalaram @ Kalu S/o Shri Gyarsa, B/c Chamar , R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶8

Nandkishore S/o Shri Gyarsa, B/c Chamar , R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶9

Mishro D/o Shri Leelaram, B/c Chamar , R/o Nayagaon Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶10

Chitru S/o Shri Sukhram Nawasa Leelaram , B/c Chamar, R/o Jindoli Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar.

¶11

Chhoti D/o Shri Sukhram Nawasi Leelaram , B/c Chamar, R/o Jindoli Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar.

¶12

Gopi S/o Shri Gyarsa , B/c Chamar, R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶13

Ramesh S/o Shri Gyarsa , B/c Chamar, R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶14

Murarilal S/o Shri Chhitarram , B/c Khateek, R/o Neemrana, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

Satyanaraya Sharma S/o Shri Vinodilal Sharma , B/c Brahmin, R/o Bansoor, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar. Rajasthan

¶18

Manju W/o Late Ramavatar, B/c Brahmin , R/o Bansoor, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar. Rajasthan

¶19

Amit S/o Shri Ramavatar Grand S/o Vinodilal B/c Brahmin , R/o Bansoor Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar , Rajasthan

¶20

Sub Registrar Bansoor, District Alwar, Rajasthan

----Respondents

(2 of 4)

[CR-51/2017]

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore on behalf of Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶27

Order

¶28

05/07/2018

¶29

Petitioners preferred this revision petition against the impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar in Civil Suit No. 12/2014 (Mamraj And Ors. vs. Santosh And Ors.) whereby learned Court below dismissed the application submitted by petitionersdefendants under Order 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that respondents- plaintiffs filed a civil suit before learned Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar against the petitioners- defendants for cancellation of sale deed No. 1190 dated 09.05.2013 and sale deed No. 1537 dated 29.05.2013 registered at Sub Registrar office Bansoor, District Alwar. Summons of the suit were issued for service of petitioners- defendants. After service of summons, petitionersdefendants put their appearance before the Court below and filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 and order 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C. stating therein that the suit has not been filed on proper court fees because the valuation of the property is Rs. 50 lacs. No notice under Section 80 of CPC has been given to Sub Registrar, Bansoor, which is mandatory. Registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent on 06.01.1961 which is ipso-facto void due to the restriction under Section 42-B

¶31

(3 of 4) [CR-51/2017]

¶32

of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 because the land in dispute belongs to the scheduled caste persons, which cannot be purchased by the person belonging to general caste. Another suit is also pending before the S.D.O., Bansoor on the same cause of action. Accordingly, the present suit is not maintainable.

¶33

After hearing on the application, learned Court below dismissed the application, against which this revision petition is filed.

¶34

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit was filed without issuing notice under Section 80 CPC to Sub Registrar, Bansoor and the Court fees is not properly paid by the respondent- plaintiff.

¶35

He further submits that the disputed land belongs to scheduled caste persons which cannot be transferred in favour of the respondent- plaintiff who belongs to general caste and on similar facts another suit is pending before S.D.O., Bansoor, therefore the plaint should have been rejected but learned Court below wrongly dismissed the application, therefore this revision petition may be allowed and the application submitted by petitioners under Order 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC may be allowed and the plaint may be rejected, in alternate it may be stayed.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and available record.

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CR-51/2017]

¶39

So far as, provision under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, at the stage of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Court has to look into only plaint.

¶40

From the perusal of application submitted by petitioners, it reveals that the grounds which are mentioned in the application and argued before the Court below and before this Court are not there in the plaint but it is defence of petitioners- defendants, which cannot be considered at the stage of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶41

So far as, prayer regarding Order 10 CPC is concerned, it is not applicable in the given circumstances, learned Court below also observed in the impugned order that the objections taken in the application are mixed question of facts and law, which cannot be decided without framing of issues and after considering all theses facts, learned Court below rightly dismissed the application, which doesn’t require any interference by this Court and this revision petition devoids merit which is hereby dismissed.

¶42

Stay application also stands dismissed.

¶43

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶44

S. Kumawat/38

Santosh and Ors. v. Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh and Ors. v. Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Mahipal and Anr.

Major Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yakub Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Swyam Prakash Swami Vs Jagdish

Gyrasi Lal Agarwal Vs Thakur Ji Shri Gopal Ji

Hardev Meena and Ors. Vs a D J Jaipur and Ors.