Dismissed

Sushil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Vishwanath Sharma v. Sukhdeva Ram S/O Shri Bhebharam

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2022CR/80/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC against an order rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court held that statutory notice was not essential for a suit primarily challenging a private sale deed involving public land.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition holding that the impugned order is devoid of merit and invoking no jurisdictional error.

Sushil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Vishwanath Sharma Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 80/2021

¶3

Sushil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vishwanath Sharma, R/o Ward No. 16, Near Bajaj Bhawan, Kasba Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Defendant-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sukhdeva Ram S/o Shri Bhebharam, R/o Village Hameerpur, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) Mob. 9413011486

¶7

Praveen Dhand S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Dhand, R/o Ward No. 07, Kasba Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) Mob. 7742511311

¶8

Surendra Pal Ruhela S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Ruhela, R/o Near Railway Station, Kasba Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) Mob. No. 9950000249

¶9

Ramswaroop Dhand S/o Shri Satya Narayan Dhandh, R/o Ward No. 12, Kasba Kaxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶10

Santosh Devi W/o Shri Ramswaroop Dhand, R/o Ward No. 12, Kasba Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶11

Nagar Palika Mandal, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, (Rajasthan), Through The Executive Officer.

¶12

----Defendants- Proforma Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. J.P. Goyal Sr. Adv. with
	Ms. Deeksha Mittal

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶15

11/11/2022

¶16

Petitioner-defendant has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 CPC, assailing the order dated 25.2.2021 passed in civil suit No.53/2020 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, dismissing his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶17

Heard counsel for both parties, perused the impugned order and material placed before this Court.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CR-80/2021]

¶20

It transpires that petitioner-defendant raised two objections in application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC:

¶21

(i) That suit has been filed in representative capacity and the compliance of Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC has not been made, and

¶22

(ii) Statutory notice under Section 304 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 has not been issued prior to institution of civil suit.

¶23

Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Murli Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided on 16.7.2017 .

¶24

Learned trial Court, in the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 has clearly held that as far as objection in respect of nonpublication of notice in the newspaper under Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC, the compliance has been made and notices have been published in Dainik Bhaskar dated 23.11.2020, therefore, to this extent the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has rendered infructuous.

¶25

In respect of another objection, the trial Court has observed that the civil suit has substantially been filed to challenge the registered sale deed dated 22.7.2020 which has been executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 including some portion of public road, the municipalities has been made party as defendant No.4, which is only a proper party. The trial Court has observed that principal relief in the suit is for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.7.2020 executed between private respondents, therefore, in such factual matrix, the requirement of statutory notice under Section 304 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 is not essential. Moreover, the

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CR-80/2021]

¶28

application has not been moved by Municipality and the private defendants have no right to move such application.

¶29

This Court does not find any illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 25.2.2021. It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed by plaintiff, for declaration of sale deed dated 22.7.2020 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2. Plaintiff has pleaded in the suit that since in the sale deed some part of the public road has been included, therefore, this sale deed be declared as null and void to that extent and the public road be maintained as it is.

¶30

As far as judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in case of Murli Ram (supra) is concerned, in that case, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by Municipalities and same was allowed. In the present case, firstly the application has not been filed by Municipalities and secondly, considering the nature of present suit and substance of challenge to the private sale deed, the requirement of notice under Section 304 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 has not been found essential.

¶31

Therefore, this Court does not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which calls for interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.

¶32

As a result, the revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶33

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶34

NITIN /88

Sushil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Vishwanath Sharma v. Sukhdeva Ram S/O Shri Bhebharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Vishwanath Sharma v. Sukhdeva Ram S/O Shri Bhebharam

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

Rewadmal S/O Sonaram @ Sheonarayan Vs Onkar S/O Chandraya

Shiv Charan Vs Sunit Kumar and Others

Jagdish S/O Shree Seduram Saini, Vs Birdi Chand S/O Shri Ramnarayan Saini

Sube Singh and Others Vs Thawar Ram and Others

Mukraj S/O Shri Ramkesh , Vs Smt. Geeta Bai Meena W/O Shri Mukraj, D/O Vishram Meena

Shri Imamuddin Shaikh Vs Smt Rehmat Bano and Ors.