Dismissed

Badri Prasad S/O Chitarmal v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2022CR/61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the plea of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the matter required evidence as the plaint lacked khasra details and the trial court committed no illegality or perversity.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed in limine as it was bereft of merit.

Badri Prasad S/O Chitarmal Vs Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/O… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 61/2021

¶3

Badri Prasad S/o Chitarmal, Aged About 55 Years,

¶4

Sukhrama S/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 35 Years,

¶5

Rajendra S/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 30 Years,

¶6

All residents of Village Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh (Raj.)

¶7

----Defendant/Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Kalwar Raod, Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh (Alwar).

¶10

----Plaintiff/Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Koushal Bhardwaj, Advocate

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Order

¶13

04/01/2022

¶14

This revision petition has been filed by the defendantspetitioners (for short, ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 18.2.2021 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(D) CPC, 1908 has been dismissed.

¶15

Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (for short, ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction mentioning therein that a Tibari (wooden carved balcony) situated in village Kalwar Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar is in his ownership and possession from the time of his forefathers. On the aforesaid Tibari (wooden carved balcony), the plaintiff laid the wooden sticks and put a Pule ka Chhapra (thatched roof) and

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CR-61/2021]

¶18

using the same since long. When the aforesaid Pule ka Chhapra (thatched roof) was decayed and the plaintiff was trying to lay a tinshed over Pule ka Chhapra (thatched roof), the defendants threatened and restrained him to lay a tinshed over Pule ka Chhapra (thatched roof).

¶19

During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (D) CPC, which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18.2.2021. Hence, this revision petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that aforesaid Tibari (wooden carved balcony) is located in the defendants' khatedari land of khasra no. 1012 situated in village Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He further submits that for the same reason, the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. However, the learned trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter and committed material illegality. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the same and submits that at the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint are germane.

¶22

Heard. Considered.

¶23

From a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that in the entire plaint, no khasra number has been mentioned. When the plaintiff claims that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit as the suit property is situated in village Kalwar Khoh, Tehsil

¶24

(3 of 3) [CR-61/2021]

¶25

Rajgarh, District Alwar and the defendants claims that the

¶26

Revenue Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit as it is situated in khasra no. 1012 of village Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, in my view, it is a mixed question of fact, which can be decided only after adducing evidence by both the parties.

¶27

Mere dismissal of the application for temporary injunction would not confer any equity in favour of the defendants at this stage, moreso when at the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered.

¶28

There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶29

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed in limine accordingly.

¶30

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶31

DK/37

Badri Prasad S/O Chitarmal v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Prasad S/O Chitarmal v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma

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

Narpat Singh S/O Banay Singh Vs Rajendra Son of Kailash Chand Meena

Harchanda S/O Chotu Vs Hazari Lal S/O Shri Mahadev

Pushkar Raj Vs Jai Narain

Subhash Chandra Kumawat Son of Shri Dwarka Prasad, Vs Pooran Mal Son of Shri Bholaram

Bhopal Son of Ramu Vs State of Rajasthan

Roshan Singh and Anr. Vs Ghan Shyam Sharma