Single judge of Rajasthan HC allowed no relief as civil revision petition challenging dismissal of Order 7 Rule 11 application was dismissed because trial court acted on settled principles regarding plaint averments that do not require factual scrutiny at that stage.
Civil revision petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:2103]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 5/2024
Shahdev S/o Shri Ugoji, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 208, Sangam Nagr, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.). Second Address: Plot No. 6, Leela Kanak Vatika, Village Pal, Tehsil And Dist. Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Tarun Prajapat S/o Shri Kailash Chandra, R/o Hosue No. 48, Rao Colony, Meghwal Chatrawas Ki Gali, Masuriya, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/2024
The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sdistrict Judge no. 7, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 34/2023 (NCV No. 262/2023) whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC.
[2024:RJ-JD:2103]
[CR-5/2024]
(2 of 4)
which was numbered as Civil Original Suit No. 34/2023 (NCV No. 262/2023). It is submitted that as per the agreement dated 02.12.2022, the agreement would become enforceable only after patta gets issued in favor of the plaintiff. It is submitted that patta has not been issued in favor of plaintiff as yet and thus no cause of action has arisen in the present case. It is also submitted that at the time of filing the suit for injunction, the respondentplaintiff could have claimed the remedy of specific performance of contract too, however the same was claimed by the plaintiff by way of filing a separate suit. Thus, it is submitted that the suit is barred by law.
[2024:RJ-JD:2103]
[CR-5/2024]
(3 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:2103]
[CR-5/2024]
(4 of 4)
deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint are to be considered..
"11. It is trite that in deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to look into the averments contained in the plaint in totality and the documents filed in support of the plaint. At this stage, the defence raised by the defendant in the written statement is immaterial. For this purpose, the court has to scrutinise the plaint averments in a meaningful manner. To come to the conclusion whether or not cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint, the hair-splitting technicalities should be avoided and intention of the plaintiff should be gathered from the tenor and the terms of the pleadings in totality. "
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
8-CPG/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an Order 7 Rule 11 application can be allowed on grounds regarding cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Whether a suit for specific performance can be barred if a plaintiff filed a separate suit for permanent injunction first.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Bank of India v. Gracure Pharmaceuticals LtdReferred¶18
2014 (1) Civil Court Cases 653 (S.C.)
Mohd. Farooq v. Yogesh & Anr.Relied on¶29
2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2255 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahdev S/o Shri Ugoji
Tarun Prajapat
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
