Dismissed

Shyam Sundar Soni v. Satya Narayan

Rajasthan HC26 Sept 2023CR/63/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an Order 7 Rule 11 application. The High Court held that averments in the plaint alone govern such applications and rejected claims of undervaluation and non-joinder of parties.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order of the Trial Court allowing the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 rejection stand affirmed.

Shyam Sundar Soni Vs Satya Narayan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

(1 of 4) [CR-63/2023]

¶2

[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 63/2023

¶5

Shyam Sundar Soni S/o Chhangan Lal Soni, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnga Shehar, Bikaner.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Satya Narayan S/o Late Shri Rmachndra Soni, R/o Dhora Baas, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnaga Shehar, Bikaner.

¶9

Tarachand S/o Late Shri Ramchndra Soni, R/o Dhora Baas, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnaga Shehar, Bikaner.

¶10

Laxmi Narayan, R/o Dhora Baas, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnaga Shehar, Bikaner.

¶11

Deendayal S/o Shyam Sunder Soni, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Near Banthiya School, New Lane, Gnga Shehar, Bikaner.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Virendra Acharya
For Respondent(s)	:

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶15

Judgment

¶16

DATE OF JUDGMENT 26/09/2023

¶17

The present revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-defendent no. 1 against the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 107/2011 (CIS No. 1611/2014) vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected.

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

[CR-63/2023]

The facts in brief for the purpose of the present revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendent no. 1. It was averred that the respondent’s father Sh. Ramchandra purchased a house cum plot admeasuring 680 square yards situated in Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Near Banthiya School, Gangashehar, Bikaner vide a registered sale deed dated 28.10.1957. The petitioner is the son of respondent-plaintiff’s younger brother-Chagan Lal. Since the petitioner did not have any place to reside, therefore the respondent gave him the house on license. The title in respect to the disputed property vests in the respondent. It was thus prayed that the decree of permanent injunction be passed against the petitioner and the plaintiffs be entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 500/- per month. Further, the petitioner may be directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the respondent.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not file any written statement to the suit filed by the plaintiff as their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for rejection of suit filed by the respondent which was rejected by the learned Trial court vide impugned order dated 20.04.2023.

¶23

It is submitted that the Trial Court committed grave error in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11. It is further submitted that the valuation of property is Rs. 7,00,000/- whereas

[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

[CR-63/2023]

(3 of 4)

the respondents have valued it at Rs. 2,40,000/- and accordingly, the deficit Court Fees has been paid. Thus, the suit is grossly undervalued.

¶28

It is further submitted that there has been non-impleadment of necessary parties. It is also submitted that no cause of action arose in the present case as the plaintiffs do not have any valid title to the property.

¶29

Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 107/2011 (CIS No. 1611/2014) be quashed and set aside and the application filed by petitioner under Order 7 rule 11 CPC alongwith Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act may be allowed.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 8. In Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557, it has been held that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments contained in the plaint are to be considered.

¶31

Perusal of material available on record reveals that the civil suit was filed on 13.05.2011. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed on 16.11.2022 which came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.04.2023.

¶32

As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is undervalued, there is no documentary evidence available on record to support that the valuation of suit

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:31725]

[CR-63/2023]

property is Rs. 7,00,000/-. The suit was preferred seeking decree of possession, compensation for use and occupation and for permanent injunction. In para 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 2,40,900/-. However, no specific denial has been made to this valuation by the defendant in his pleadings. Thus, the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is undervalued, is baseless.

¶37

It is significant to note here that for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner put forth his defence stating inter alia that there has been non-joinder of necessary parties. However, as per the decision on Hon’ble Apex Court in Saleem Bhai (supra) , for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be looked at. The written statement, or any other contention raised by the defendent is immaterial at the stage of deciding application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. It appears that the petitioner has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 only in order to linger on the proceedings. Thus, in my considered view, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is well reasoned and calls for no interference.

¶38

Consequently, the present revision petition, being bereft of merits, is dismissed.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶41

2-CPG/-

Shyam Sundar Soni v. Satya Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Soni v. Satya Narayan

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

Surajbhan Yadav and Anr. Vs Smt. Rajkanwar and Ors.

Ikbal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kishore Saraf Vs Raja Ram Saraf

Shyalu Vs Ranveer

Pooja Panchariya Vs Manish Sharma

Vandana Ghavri Vs Ajay Kalyana