Dismissed

Durga Shankar Sharma v. Pushpa Sharma

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2021CR/12/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges the trial court's rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of a suit for injunction. The High Court held that an application under Order VII Rule 11 is based on plaint averments, not the defense. Since the plaint did not aver that petitioners were in possession, dismiss for maintainability cannot be decided. The petition is dismiss

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed against the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is dismissed.

Durga Shankar Sharma Vs Pushpa Sharma — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2021

¶3

Durga Shankar Sharma S/o Khem Raj, Aged About 70 Years, 39, Kast Kala Marg, Kheradiwara, Udaipur

¶4

Yamini Sharma D/o Durga Shankar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, 39, Kast Kala Marg, Kheradiwara, Udaipur

¶5

Lavisha Sharma D/o Durga Shankar Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, 39, Kast Kala Marg, Kheradiwara, Udaipur

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pushpa Sharma W/o Ratan Lal Suthar, Aged About 67 Years, 38, Kast Kala Marg, Kheradiwara, Udaipur

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Durga Shanker Sharma, petitioner No.1 in person For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

23/02/2021

¶14

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20/1/2021 passed by Civil Judge (South), Udaipur City, Udaipur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

¶15

The suit was filed by the respondent – plaintiff for mandatory & permanent injunction on 17/5/2014 against the petitioner no.1, her brother, in relation to plot no. 199, Block – A, Chitrakoot Nagar, Bhuvana, Udaipur. It was indicated that the defendant, her brother, was somehow trying to illegally take possession of the plot in question and was threatening the plaintiff for registering the plot in his name and has indulged in removing the gate and

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CR-12/2021]

¶18

demolishing the wall. It was alleged that the defendant, who is a lawyer, has threatened that by concocting the documents he would take possession of the plot. Based on the said allegations, it was indicated that the cause of action finally arose on 5/5/2014 when again threat was given and extreme misbehaviour was done. Based on the said submissions, relief was claimed for permanent injunction against the defendant not to trespass over the plot in question and not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and by way of mandatory injunction, to get the gate and wall reconstructed.

¶19

The plaint was got amended by impleading petitioner nos. 2 and 3, daughters of petitioner no.1, based on the subsequent event, whereby, the petitioner no.1 transferred the plot in question to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 by sale deed dated 26/5/2014.

¶20

Written statement was filed by the petitioner no.1 inter alia claiming that the plaintiff had executed an agreement to sell dated 25/7/2012 qua the plot in question in his favour and on 15/2/2013 the Power of Attorney was executed in his favour.

¶21

Further submissions were made that the consideration was paid by petitioner no.1 to the plaintiff and that he has been in possession of the plot in question ever since. Thereafter, he has transferred the plot in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3.

¶22

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner first filed an application under Section 151 CPC requiring the plaintiff to pay court fees based on the market value of the property, which application was rejected, which was carried in revision before this Court, wherein, on 26/5/2015, the Court directed framing of preliminary issue on the said aspect. Based on which, issue no. 3- A was framed by the trial court, which came to be decided on

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[CR-12/2021]

¶25

29/5/2018 by the trial court and it required the plaintiff to make payment of requisite court fees.

¶26

The order was challenged before this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14035/2018 by the plaintiff, which was allowed on 18/11/2020 by this Court and the order passed by the trial court was set aside.

¶27

Now the defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia on the ground that simple suit for injunction was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed.

¶28

The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as to under what provision the suit was barred has not been indicated, the issues have been framed and the suit is pending at the stage of evidence since the year 2017 and consequently rejected the application.

¶29

It is submitted by the petitioner no.1, who has appeared in person, that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inasmuch as the defendants are in possession of the suit property and as such a simple suit for injunction cannot be maintained.

¶30

Further submissions have been made that only in the circumstances as laid down in the case of Anuthula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy : (2008) 4 SCC 594 the suit for injunction can be maintained, which are not available in the present case and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application.

¶31

Further attempts were made to rely on the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the Act, 1882’) to contend that the petitioners are in possession of the plot in question in part performance of the agreement and, therefore,

¶32

(4 of 5)

¶33

[CR-12/2021]

¶34

also the suit is not maintainable and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and the plaint deserves to be rejected.

¶35

I have considered the submissions made by petitioner no.1, who has appeared in person, and have perused the material available on record.

¶36

It is well settled that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to be adjudicated based on the averments made in the plaint and the defense sought to be raised by the defendants cannot be looked into for determining the said application. A perusal of the amended plaint nowhere reflects that the plaintiff has averred anywhere that the petitioners are in possession of the plot in question, which would make her suit for injunction not maintainable on any of the grounds sought to be alleged by the petitioners.

¶37

This Court while deciding the issue of valuation of the suit and court fees has come to the conclusion that the court fees paid, based on the suit for injunction, was sufficient.

¶38

In view thereof, it cannot be said that the suit as filed by the plaintiff was barred on the ground alleged.

¶39

So far as the judgment in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) is concerned, the issue based on the aspects laid down in the said judgment can only be determined after the parties lead evidence and not in abstract, based on the averments made in the plaint, which averments, as noticed hereinbefore, do not bring the case within the parameters of the said judgment.

¶40

The plea raised based on Section 53-A of the Act, 1882 is again by way of defense and cannot be made subject matter of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and, therefore, on

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

[CR-12/2021]

¶43

that count also the plea, though not raised before the trial court, has no basis.

¶44

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶45

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶46

9-baweja/-

Durga Shankar Sharma v. Pushpa Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Shankar Sharma v. Pushpa Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shyam Madhav Polybags Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Distt. Magistrate, Udaipur

Tola Ram Vs Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee

Mohit Kumar Vs State

The Chairman, Managing Committee, Sesomu Girls College Vs Manisha Vishwakarma

Rajendra Kumar Vs Arora Khatri Samaj through President and Members

Kamla Devi Vs M/S Ganpati Multi Commodity Business Pvt. Ltd.