Dismissed

Teja Ram v. Jhamku Devi

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2021CR/84/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. The High Court rejected the revision, holding that the cause of action plea is not examined at that stage and the Supreme Court's Dahiben ratio was inapplicable to these facts.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition made by the petitioners was dismissed.

Teja Ram Vs Jhamku Devi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 84/2021

¶3

Teja Ram S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶4

Narayan Ram S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶5

Mirga Devi W/o Chela Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Duda Bera, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Jhamku Devi W/o Ghewar Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Devgarh, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : --

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

26/11/2021

¶14

The petitioners-defendants by way of this revision petition, have assailed the order dated 08.10.2021 whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District (for short ‘trial Court’).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent has filed civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.08.2015 on the ground that the sale consideration paid by the petitioners by way of cheques has not been received to him as all the cheques were dishonored.

¶16

It has been argued that non-payment of sale consideration itself does not give rise to any cause of action so as to file suit for

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CR-84/2021]

¶19

cancellation of the sale deed and at the most plaintiff should or could have file suit for claiming for the amount of unpaid sale consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9519/2019 (Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead) reported in (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366 .

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Perused the pleadings of plaint as well as the impugned order. It reveals that in the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned the pleadings for accrual of cause of action to file the present suit and at the stage of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court is not required to examine the validity/truthfulness of the cause of action. Accordingly, the suit is not liable to be rejected within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the aforesaid ground.

¶22

This Court do not find any illegality much less jurisdictional error in the impugned order and same is not required to be interferred with. The ratio of law, laid down by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and that has been passed in different context.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶24

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶25

12-AnilKC/-

Teja Ram v. Jhamku Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teja Ram v. Jhamku Devi

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

Sycone Cpmc Private Limited Vs Indian Institute of Management

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu @ Shohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bal Kishan Vs Meera Devi

Ritik Vs State of Rajasthan

Lal Singh Chouhan Vs Kishan Singh Chouhan