In this civil revision petition, the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur rejected the defendant-petitioner's challenge to the Trial Court's order dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC regarding the rejection of a plaint.
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 RAJASTH~N BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 150/2019
Jagmohan Prasad Agarwal @ Dr. J.M. Agarwal S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, B/c Mahajan, R/o 4-Chh-19, Vigyan Nagar, Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Surendra Singh S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh, B/c Rajput, Resident Of . ajpu$Joh,f$t&~& >al. Tehsil Ladpura, Kota '"" >@ *
~esidehP0f 3h s7 House No. 2, Na-8, Vigyan Bhatnagar Sjo Late Shri
Of 1-Ka-7, Vigyan Nagar, Kota
HON'BLE
ASH GUPTA
16/01/2020
This revision petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant (hereinafte? referred to as 'the defendant') under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.2.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 102/2018, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff filed a reply thereto. Trial Court vide
its order dated 27.2.2019 dismissed the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 CPC. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the purported agreement is of 23.12.2003, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2018. In this view of the matter, suit being time barred and based on the purported agreement, which is not on requisite readwith Section
151 CPC liable to be
Before proceeding! fu.rther in the matter, it would be necessary to have of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, which reads .. .
II be rejected in the
following cases:-
(a) where it does
ndervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the w* valuation wiFfitb:gj tib.i;&q be fixed by the Court, fails to 1'*.."V" do so; 2%" * -
(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;
where it is not filed in duplicate (e)
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with provisions of Rule 9
[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 cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the .- . " "- *. . , z g CX- -requisite stamp-paper, as'the case may be, ,within the time fixed jthat refusal to extend such ti.rne would cause Q$ ~.& e plaintiff.]" c. .-$&" "1: ., elevant part of the application filed by thedefendant
jer Order 7 Rule 11 CPC iskreptioduced as under:
d '\2 a%m'?mmgmqphyrm=ifHii&ff?
From a conjoint reading of the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 CPC as I also provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is clear that the grounds raised in the application for rejection of the plaint do not fall under any of the clauses of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC.
jii -&j. 1 #,! I am in iC.e agr;ee.rn@nt. - I . with. the findings arrived by the Trial em k "; $-.* Court in its okderldated 27.2.2019. The order &ated 27.2.2019 % ,' LA@ passed by-.bl$e?ial Court is just and proper and suffers from no *%', J @p-3 4" illegality o perversity.
For the no force in this revision
petitio~. It is
DILIP KHANDELWAL 125
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds raised for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were applicable in the present case.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was just, proper and not perversely arrived at.
Whether the revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable for the issues raised herein.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagmohan Prasad Agarwal @ Dr. J.M. Agarwal
Surendra Singh
Anil Kumar Gupta
Ash Gupta
Prakash Gupta
Dilip Khandelwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
