The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a civil revision petition contending that observations on merit by the trial court in rejecting a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC prejudiced the petitioner's case. The court held the apprehension misplaced and found no case for interference.
The revision petition was 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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 2/2021
Sanyogita W/o Devendra Singh Chouhan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Narbad Kheda, Beawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan)
Versus
Rohit Modi S/o Gopal Modi, R/o A-117, Janta Colony, Jaipur (Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sudhish Agrawal S/o Unkar Ji, R/o Ambaji, Banaskantha, Gujarat - As Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Plaint)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
19/01/2021
This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.11.2020 passed by District Judge, Rajsamand, whereby, the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an oral agreement and mandatory injunction. The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking to question the maintainability of the suit and prayed for rejection of the plaint on account of the nature of power of attorney as well as the fact that the agreement sought to be enforced was oral.
The trial court, after hearing the parties by observing that the issues raised in the application were baseless as it was settled law that the agreement can be oral and as to how the suit was
(2 of 2)
[CR-2/2021]
barred has not been indicated by the plaintiff and the power of attorney was not irrevocable rejected the application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions and emphasized that the observations made on merit by the trial court, would prejudice the petitioner’s case, inasmuch as, even if the plaint was not liable to be rejected, the determination made would affect the final outcome of the suit and / or issues to be raised by the petitioner by filing written statement.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the observations made by the trial court pertaining to the aspects raised in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are misplaced, inasmuch as, the same have been made based on the submissions made in the application and cannot be taken as final determination on issues to be raised by the petitioner in the written statement on merit so as to prejudice the rights / case of the petitioner in the main suit.
In view thereof, as the apprehension has been formed without any basis and having considered the order impugned, no case for interference in the order impugned, rejecting the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is made out.
The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
17-Sachin/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference is required in the trial court's order rejecting a petition to reject a plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanyogita W/o Devendra Singh Chouhan
Rohit Modi S/o Gopal Modi
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
