Partly allowed

Amritlal v. Shanta Jain

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2021CR/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted revisions against a trial court's order rejecting a plaint rejection application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court held the rejection was unsustainable without a reasoned order addressing the contentions and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to re-decide the application after hearing parties.

Amritlal Vs Shanta Jain — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 22/2021

¶3

Amritlal S/o Tarachand, Aged About 72 Years, Nearby Kabir Temple Nathelaav Colony, Dis. Banswara

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shanta Jain W/o Suresh Jain, Bahubali Colony Dis. Banswara

¶7

Bhawya Jain S/o Suresh Jain, Bahubali Colony, Dis. Banswara

¶8

Drashti Jain D/o Suresh Jain, Bahubali Colony, Dis. Banswara

¶9

Suresh Jain S/o Tarachand Jain, Bahubali Colony, Dis. Banswara

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit Mr. Prashant Tatia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh. Mr. G.S. Rathore.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

17/08/2021

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Banswara, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

¶17

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction, declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction.

¶18

The petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on several grounds.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CR-22/2021]

¶21

Reply to the application was filed by the plaintiffs contesting the averments contained in the application.

¶22

After hearing the parties, the trial court observed in one line that the issues raised in the application can only be decided after framing of issues and evidence is led by the parties and rejected the application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application in such a cursory manner. Submissions were made that in the application filed by the petitioner, contentions were raised, which clearly shows that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaint was liable to be rejected, however, the trial court without even dealing with the contentions raised, in a wholly cursory manner, has rejected the application and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶24

Submissions were also made on merits of the application and it was prayed that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC be allowed and the plaint be rejected.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs supported the order impugned. It was submitted that all the contentions raised by the defendant in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC requires leading of the evidence and the same could not have been decided based on the averments contained in the application and, therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application, the revision petition also deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶27

The petitioner – defendant raised certain issues in application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the plaintiffs contested the

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CR-22/2021]

¶30

same. The trial court by the order impugned by merely indicating that the issues raised required leading of evidence, rejected the application. No reference, whatsoever, was made to the issues raised and as to in what manner, in absence of evidence, the issues raised required evidence were not indicated. Rejection of the application by merely indicating that the issues raised required leading of evidence, cannot be sustained.

¶31

It is expected of the trial court to deal with the application and pass a reasoned order. Merely indicating the conclusion is not sufficient. The basis for reaching to a particular conclusion has to be indicated in the order. In view thereof, the order impugned passed by the trial court cannot be sustained.

¶32

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to re-decide the application after hearing the parties and pass an appropriate order.

¶33

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶34

87-Sumit/-

Amritlal v. Shanta Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amritlal v. Shanta Jain

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Narendra Singh Lalas

Smt.Gurmel Kaur and Anr. Vs Smt.Sujan Kaur and Anr.

Jule Khan Vs Gulam Rasool and Ors.

M/S Candico (I) Limited Vs Commercial Taxes Officer

M/S Candico (I) Limited Vs Commercial Taxes Officer

Smt. Savitri Devi and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.