Dismissed

K.K. Chandravanshi @ Kanhaiya Kumar Chandravanshi v. Ritu Chandravanshi @ Ritu Tak

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2024CR/12/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court held that since the suit involved relief against third parties (municipalities, banks), civil court jurisdiction was not barred. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to raise stay of subsequent suit under Section 10 CPC.

K.K. Chandravanshi @ Kanhaiya Kumar Chandravanshi Vs… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:10660]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2022

¶4

K.K. Chandravanshi @ Kanhaiya Kumar Chandravanshi S/o Shri Visvanath Shah Ji Chandravanshi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o B 701-702 Shubh Ashiyana Apartment, Khara Kua, Near Uday Petrol Pump, Sobhagpura, 100 Feet Main Road, Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ritu Chandravanshi @ Ritu Tak D/o Mahesh Chandra Tak, W/o K.k. Chandravanshi @ Kaniya Kumar Chandravanshi, R/o B 701-702 Shubh Ashiyana Apartment, Khara Kua, Near Uday Petrol Pump, Sobhagpura, 100 Feet Main Road, Udaipur.

¶8

Chankya Coaching Institute, Through Proprietor Ritu Chandravanshi @ Ritu Tak D/o Mahesh Chandra Tak W/o K.k. Chandravanshi @ Kaniya Kumar Chandravanshi, R/o B 701-702 Shubh Ashiyana Apartment, Khara Kua, Near Uday Petrol Pump, Sobhagpura, 100 Feet Main Road, Udaipur.

¶9

Aditya Birla Housingh Finance Limited Unit No. 32/1105, 4Th Floor Center Point Building Opp. B.n. College, Udaipur Through Branch Manager, Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited Unit No. 32/1105 4Th Floor Center Point Building Opp. B.n. College, Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Karan Parihar.
	Ms.	Reema Gupta.
	Mr.	Samyak Dalal.
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

04/03/2024

¶15

Vide impugned order dated 28.10.2021, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 1/2019, the Learned trial Judge has rejected the

[2024:RJ-JD:10660]

[CR-12/2022]

(2 of 3)

prayer of the defendant/petitioner to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶20

Respondent no. 1 Ritu Chandravanshi @ Ritu Tak, who is wife of the petitioner had brought the aforesaid suit for declaration that flat nos. 701 and 702 in Shubh Ashiyana Apartment in the town of Udaipur, are flats of the plaintiff and those flats where mortgaged with respondent no. 3 Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, therefore, mandatory injunction was sought for against respondent no. 3 for release of the original documents hypothecated with the bank. The petitioner, who is husband of the plaintiff appeared in the suit and sought for impleadment as a party and the prayer was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed civil case no. 2/2020 before the Family Court, Udaipur seeking declaration of his title over the aforesaid flats of which the petitioner claimed to be the owner. Further prayer was for restraining the respondents by permanent injunction from disposing of the said property in any manner. The title deed was also claimed which was mortgaged with the bank Aditya Birla who was a party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them is maintainable before the Family Court under the Family Courts Act in view of the jurisdiction of the Family Court mentioned under Section 7(1)[Explanation (c)] of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court in the present case had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the relief sought for.

[2024:RJ-JD:10660]

[CR-12/2022]

(3 of 3)

Evidently no ground for rejection of plaint is made out rather, a case for a stay of the subsequent suit or a case under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint to be presented before Competent Authority may be raised.

¶26

This Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact real dispute of property is between the husband and wife only, because in the plaint brought by the petitioner, the Municipalities and registration authorities have also been impleaded as parties. Therefore, evidently, the plaintiff has sought for relief against third person also.

¶27

Since the plaintiff in this case has sought for relief from a third person as well, who is not a party to the marriage, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred, therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order.

¶28

Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed as devoid of any merit. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the issue under Section 10 CPC for stay of the subsequent suit, if the question involved in the previously instituted suit is same and is between the same parties.

¶29

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶30

30-sumer/-

K.K. Chandravanshi @ Kanhaiya Kumar Chandravanshi v. Ritu Chandravanshi @ Ritu Tak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K. Chandravanshi @ Kanhaiya Kumar Chandravanshi v. Ritu Chandravanshi @ Ritu Tak

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

Om Prakash Vs Nandlal

Ramesh Bapu and Ors. Vs Kirti Bhai and Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Maya Bai

Lrs of Dharma Vs Roshani

Icici Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Munni Devi and Ors.

Priyanka Khatri Alias Aarti Vs Giriraj Khatri