Arun Kumar Jain Son of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Vs Smt. Manorama Wife of Shripalji Daughter of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 58/2012

¶4

Arun Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Rampura Kota Presently Residing At 176, Ballabhbari, Kota.

¶5

Rajendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Resident Of Rampura Kota Presently Residing At 176, Ballabhbari, Kota.

¶6

Shrawan Son Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Resident Of Rampura Kota Presently Residing At 132, Ballabhbari, Kota.

¶7

Ashok Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Laxmilalji, Resident Of C-2, Vasundhara Vihar, Bajrang Nagar, Police Station Nayapura, Kota.

¶8

Vijay Son Of Late Shri Laxmilalji, Resident Of 158, 159, Shakti Tower, Ground Floor, Kanadiya Road, Near Narmada Pani Ki Tanki, Goyal Nagar, Indore(MP) Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli) Resident Of Rampura Kota Presently Residing At 176, Ballabhbari, Kota.

¶9

Smt. Sobhag Bai Wife Of Late Shri Laxmilalji, Resident Of C-2, Vasundhara Vihar, Bajrang Nagar, Police Station Nayapura, Kota Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Resident Of Rampura Kota Presently Residing At 176, Ballabhbari, Kota.

¶10

Smt. Manju Wife Of Shri Manilalji Kataria, Son Of Shri Laxmilalji, Resident Of 122, Mahavir Nagar, Indore, Kota Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain(Jaroli), Resident Of Rampura Kota Presently Residing At 176, Ballabhbari, Kota.

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

Smt. Manorama Wife Of Shripalji Daughter Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of20/28, Vijaywadi, Chira Bazar, Police Station L.t. Marg, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

¶14

Smt. Asha Wife Of Shri Parasmalji Nahar Daughter Of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Nahar Sales, Lakkadpitha, Ratlam Kota.

¶15

Govind Suman Son Of Shri Prabhulal Suman, Aged About 50 Years, Properly Dealer, Resident Of Bajrang Nagar, Police Station Nayapura, Kota.

(2 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

Amarnath Rajoria Son Of Banshidhar Rajoria, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of I-1, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶20

Meghraj Panjwani Son Of Shri Parumal, Aged About 81 Years, Resident Of I-3, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶21

Naresh Sharma Son Of Shri Rajaram Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Ofi-5, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶22

Smt. Geeta Sharma Wife Of Shri Naresh Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of I-5, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶23

Shri Ajay Chaudhary Son Of Shri Poonam Chand, Aged About 50 Years, And Smt. Seema Choudhary Wife Of Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Resident Ofi-6, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶24

Dungar Singh Hada Son Of Shri Kishore Singh Hada, Aged About 62 Years, And Smt. Manorama Hada Wife Of Shri Dungar Singh Hada, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of I- 7, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶25

Pankaj Kachhawa Son Of Shri Bajranglal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of H-2, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶26

Bharat Daga Son Of Shri Vitthal Das Daga, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of H-4, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶27

Navin Daga Son Of Shri Vitthal Das Daga, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of H-5, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶28

Dinesh Sharma Son Of Shri Shivcharan Lal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of H-6, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶29

Smt. Seema Khandelwal Wife Of Shri Dhanedra Khandelwal, Aged About 38 Years, And Smt. Santosh Khandelwal Wife Of Jitendra Khandelwal,aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Sheel Bhawan, Gumanpura, Kota.

¶30

Om Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Sukhdeo Prasad Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of I-2, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶31

Rajesh Soni Son Of Shri Gopal Chand Soni, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of I-4, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Line, Kota.

¶32

Rajesh Kumar Paliwal Son Of Shri Bhairavlal Paliwal, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Iii Floor, Kalawati Paliwal Market, Gumanpura, Kota.

¶33

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Son Of Shri Prem Bihari Tiwari, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of J-1, Ambedkar Colony, Kunhadi, Kota.

(3 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

Sub Registrar, Office Of The Sub Registrar, Kota.

¶38

Urban Improvement Trust, Through Secretary, Near Cad Circle, Kota.

¶39

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Ladpura, Kota.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Mootha. Mr. Saransh Saini.
	Mr. B.L. agarwal.

¶42

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶43

Order

¶44

17/05/2024

¶45

Instant revision petition is preferred by the petitionersdefendants aggrieved from Order dated 19.04.2012 in Civil Suit No. 80/2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kota (South), whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed.

¶46

Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitionersdefendants had submitted that a Civil Suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction was filed by respondent No.1 plaintiff with false allegation that plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 8 are members of HUF, whose Karta was Shri Nemi Chand Jain. He also submitted that as per averments in the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned that the settlement on 24.07.1980 for the property mentioned in para No.2 and on the basis of settlement, was mutated on 05.04.1985. He also referred to the averments made in the

(4 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

plaint and submitted that as per plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were granted power of attorney, which was notarized on 27.01.2004, but same was termed as forged, fabricated and false though execution was admitted by the plaintiff herself. He also submitted that after admission by the plaintiff, she mentioned about cancellation of power of attorney, which means she raised two contrary pleas. He also referred para No.6, wherein details of 24 plots were mentioned by plaintiff and out of which, 22 were already sold before presentation of plaint and 02 were remaining. He also submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit on the basis of agriculture land and the sequence of events as mentioned by the plaintiff clearly established that by the time the suit was filed, the character of the land has been changed and now at the time of institution of Civil Suit, plaintiff was neither holder of agriculture land nor in possession of the land. He also submitted that a suit was also filed before the SDO, which ended by way of compromise. He also referred para No.8 and submitted that the plaintiff has mentioned execution of relinquishment-deed and further alleged that by playing fraud, this deed got executed by the defendants. He also referred to the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff has also challenged the compromise and the relinquishment-deed.

¶51

Learned Senior Advocate while referring to the settled law to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC submitted that at the stage of consideration of application,

(5 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

only a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint are required to be considered by the Trial Court and in the instant case, the plaint and the documents as referred and annexed by the plaintiff are sufficient to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also submitted that by way of this application, the petitioners-defendants have raised the bar of jurisdiction in respect of an agriculture land mentioned in para No.2 and further proceedings under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. He also submitted that they have raised the objection regarding improper valuation and insufficient court-fee paid at the time of institution of Civil Suit. He also submitted that a plain reading of the plaint further shows that several cause of actions from family settlement to registry of land were clubbed together whereas all of them are separate cause of action. He also submitted that the instant suit is barred by law under the Rajathan Tenancy Act and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, but the Trial Court has not considered this at the time of consideration and disposal of application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC preferred by the petitioners-defendants.

¶56

Learned Senior Advocate while referring to the averments made in the plaint submitted that at the time of institution of Civil Suit, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, therefore, she can't institute a Civil Suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction without filing a suit for possession. He also submitted that a suit for declaratory

(6 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

relief in the instant case, is not maintainable without a proper suit for cancellation of documents as challenged by the plaintiff. He also submitted that proper provision of Rajasthan Court-Fee and Suit Valuation Act has not been applied for correct valuation and payment of sufficient courtfee, but the Trial Court instead of considering this objection, has superfluously dealt with the issue, which is contrary to the legal position. He also submitted that the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act specifically bars the institution of such suits for relief claimed in the instant suit by the plaintiff. He also submitted that as per para Nos. 13 and 14, the land was sold by registered sale-deed and later on, lease-deeds were issued by UIT. He further submitted that the admission of plaintiff clearly shows that several houses were constructed on suit property, which also fortifies his contention that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. He specifically referred to Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and submitted that such a suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable under the Law, and the Trial Court has committed serious error while continuing the suit, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

¶61

Learned Senior Advocate relied upon judgments in case of T. Arvindandam v. T.V. Satyapal : (1997) 4 SCC 467 and Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 2717/2023 and submitted that if a Civil Suit is filed on the basis of clever

(7 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

drafting with illusory cause of action, even then, same is liable to be dismissed. He also referred judgment in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers & Ors.: (2004) 11 SCC 168 and submitted that if a suit is in abuse of process of the Court, then the Court is not helpless, and if same is not covered under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC then it is liable to be dismissed under Section 151 CPC. He further relied upon judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradasji v. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors. : 2008 (2) RLW 1390 (Raj.) . He also referred judgment in the case of Abdul Nabi Sahib v. Bhajan Sahib & Ors.: AIR 1944 Madras 221 for theory of constructive possession. He further relied upon judgments in the cases of Ambika Prasad & Ors. v. Ram Shiromani @ Chandrika Prakash Dwivedi : AIR 2011 MP 18; LRs of Surja Ram & Ors. v. LRs of Asha Ram & Ors.: 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 818; Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur : AIR 1981 P&H 368; Kedar Agarwal & Anr. v. Rajkumar Agarwal & Ors.: SBCWP No. 7484/2017 (decided on 03.09.2020; Mahendra Singh Ranawat v. Bhagwati Devi : S.B. Civil Revision No. 151/2016 (decided on 03.02.2017; Devnarayan Sharma v. Ramphool & Ors.: SBCWP No. 15381/2017 (decided on 10.05.2019) and Devnarayan Sharma v. Ramphool & Ors.: DBCWP No. 15381/2017 (decided on 16.10.2019) . He also relied upon judgment in the case Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh

(8 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

& Ors.: (2010) 12 SCC 112 for proper valuation of the subject matter in the instant case. He further relied upon judgment in case of J. Vasanthi & Ors. v. N. Ramani : (2017) 11 SCC 852 .

¶70

Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposing the contentions of learned Senior Advocate for the petitionersdefendants submitted that on the basis of knowledge about the alleged documents, the plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit before the Court having competent jurisdiction. He also submitted that at the preliminary stage while deciding application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the Court cannot consider the defence of the petitioners-defendants as raised under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. He agreed that at the time of disposal of application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the Court can only look at the averments made in plaint, but not any other document or the defence raised in written statement or application. He also submitted that the plaintiff, who is residing at Mumbai was not aware about the power of attorney, which was forged and fabricated. He also submitted that other documents, which were questioned by the plaintiff, were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff. He also submitted that most of the documents were executed on the basis of fabricated power of attorney, which was never executed by the plaintiff. He also submitted that once a document, which was not executed by the plaintiff, and same is questioned, then plaintiff is not required to file any suit for cancellation of document, executed in pursuant to

(9 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

forged document. He also referred Order I, Rule 3 CPC and submitted that the Court may add or remove a person as a party to the proceedings at its own discretion or at the request of any of the party, but same is not sufficient to dismiss the Civil Suit of the plaintiff. He also submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of possession over joint property and same is maintainable before the Trial Court. He also submitted that any subsequent transaction without knowledge or permission of the plaintiff on the land of the plaintiff is void ab initio and plaintiff cannot be bound down from alleged transactions, therefore, a suit for cancellation is not required to be filed and only on the basis of declaratory relief, same cannot be declared as non-effective and void against the plaintiff.

¶75

Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff relied upon judgment in the case of Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur & Ors.: 2023 (3) Civil Court Cases 770 (SC) and submitted that whether the prayer of the plaintiff is proper or not, this is a question to be decided in the main suit and not at this stage. He also referred judgments in the case of Shanti Lal Agarwal v. Smt. Rama Bai : AIR 1974 Rajasthan 69; Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. (supra) and B.P. Naagar & Ors. v. Raj Pal Sharma : 2023 (3) DNJ (SC) 840 and submitted that plaintiff filed a suit with prayer for declaration and consequential relief and injunction, therefore, the contention of petitionersdefendants are liable to be rejected. He also referred the

(10 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

judgments in the case of Smt. Shashi Goyal v. Mohan Lal Agarwal : 2017 (1) CDR 342 (Raj.); Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.: 2019 (3) CCC 583 (SC) and Kedar Agarwal & Anr. v. Rajkumar

¶80

Agarwal & Ors. (supra) and submitted that at the stage of consideration of application, the allegation in the plaint cannot be examined on merits and the grounds raised by the petitioners-defendants are mixed question of facts of law, therefore, they are required to be adjudicated after completion of pleadings and evidence. At last, he submitted that this is a frivolous petition filed by the petitionersdefendants to delay the proceedings before the Trial Court and same is required to be dismissed.

¶81

Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitionersdefendants and learned counsel for the respondents. Also perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by both the parties.

¶82

A perusal of record indicated that respondent No.1 plaintiff - Smt. Manorama (resident of Mumbai) has filed a Civil Suit against 23 private individuals including present petitioners and 03 institutional defendants including State of Rajasthan for declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction. A copy of plaint, placed on record, pedigree of some of the parties connected with each other was mentioned in para No.1, whereas the property, which was claimed as HUF property was mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. As per averments in the plaint, there was a family settlement on 24.07.1980

(11 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

and on the basis of family settlement, mutation was recorded on 05.04.1985. The plaintiff has challenged several actions and for sake of brevity, we are not reproducing any of them, but while deciding this petition, it is necessary to reproduce the prayer of the plaint and the same is reproduced as under:-

¶87

"1fd xzke dksVM+h] rglhy ykM+iqjk ftyk dksVk dh vkjkft;kr [kljk uEcj 38 dh jdck 0-35 gsDVj] [kljk uEcj 39 dk jdck 0-17 gsDVj] [kljk uEcj 41@325 dk jdck 0-06 gsDVj] [kljk uEcj 42 dk jdck 0-02 gsDVj] [kljk uEcj 55@342 dk jdck 0-04 gsDVj] dqy fdrk 5 dk 0-64 gsDVj vkjkft;kr tks okfnuh dks ikfjokfjd lsVyesUV esa izkIr gqbZ gS] okfnuh dh df"k Hkwfe gS] mDr Hkwfe dh ,d ek= [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj okfnuh gS] ftls izfroknh Øe&25 }kjk vkoklh; mi;ksx gsrq /kkjk 90&ch ys.M jsosU;w ,DV dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 17-02-2010 ,oa mDr dk;Zokgh ds vUrxZr okfnuh ds df"k Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj lekfIr dh dk;Zokgh rFkk ofnuh dh mDr vkjkft;kr ds df"k ls vkoklh; esa Hkw mi;ksx ifjorZu dh dk;Zokgh voS/k] vukf/kdr] okfnuh ds fgrksa ds fo:) izHkko'kwU; gS] rFkk okfnuh dh d`f"k Hkwfe ds fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds i{k esa fd;s x;s foØ; ds iath;u ftldk o.kZu pj.k Øe&13 esa fd;k x;k gS] ,oa mDr dk;Zokgh ds vUrxZr tkjh fd;s x;s vkoklh; mi;ksx ds iVVs ftudk o.kZu pj.k Øe&14 esa fd;k x;k gS] mDr iVVs ,oa mudk iath;u voS/k ,oa okfnuh ds fgrksa ds fo:) izHkko 'kwU; gSA

¶88

2- fd izfroknh Øe&1] 2 o 9 }kjk dwVjfpr eq[rkj ukek vke fnukad 27-01-2004 ds ek/;e ls okfnuh dh mDr vkjkft;kr ds lEca/k esa dh xbZ leLr dk;Zokgh;ka ,oa VªkUtsD'ku voS/k ,oa izHkko 'kwU; gS] rFkk okfnuh ds fgrksa ds izfrdwy gksus ls fu"izHkkoh gSA

¶89

3- ;g fd okfnuh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh vkns'kkRed LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k okfnuh dk iz;kl ugh djsa ,oa izfroknh Øe&24 mDr Hkwfe ls lEcaf/kr iV~Vksa dk vFkok foØ; i= ,oa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh

(12 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

dk;Zokgh dk iath;u ugha djsaA ,slk dR; u rks Lo;a djsa vkSj u gh vius fdlh izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls djkosaA 4- fd okfnuh dh mDr Hkwfe dh fdLe vkoklh; ls iqu% df"k esa ifjofrZr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku djsa rFkk izfroknh Øe 26 dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos dh jktLo fjdksVZ esa izfroknh ua- 1 yxk;r 23 dk ;k vU; dk uke okfnuh dh dqy Hkwfe ij vafdr ugha djs vkSj okfnuh dk jktLo fjdksVZ ls uke gVkos ,slk d`R; izfroknh Øe 26 djs vkSj u vius fdlh izfrfuf/k ls djkos ,oa okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls Hkwfe ds ;wt ,.M vkWD;wis'ku pktsZt 10]000@& :i;s izfrekg fnyk;k tkosA "

¶94

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors.: 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by limitation, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

¶95

After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi :

¶96

1986 SCC (SUPP) 315 opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bond to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

¶97

Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any

(13 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

application filed under Order VII Rule 11 the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

¶102

Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb : 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, has on illusory cause of action and is barred by law.

¶103

A perusal of entire plaint indicated that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit with multiple reliefs. Moreover, the sequence of events as reflected in the plaint clearly indicated that several cause of action were clubbed together by the plaintiff. Moreover, the narration of facts in the plaint also reflects that from partition to change of land uses were questioned by the plaintiff and these incidences relate to several years back, but the Trial Court has neither considered each relief nor that from facts narrated by the plaintiff, whether the suit is barred by law of limitation. The maintainability of suit is a legal question, which is required to be considered by the Trial Court, unless the circumstances are such that same appears to be mixed question of law and facts.

(14 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is a specific remedy, but in case, if any remedy is harsh even then same is provided under the law, but it appears that the Trial Court instead of considering the grounds raised by the petitioners herein in their application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has cursorily dismissed the application on the ground that the question raised herein is a mixed question of fact and law. When there is a law of limitation, applicable to file a particular suit or proceeding within the time prescribed from accrual of cause of action then the suit or the proceeding have to be instituted within the said time so prescribed under the law. The law is always a strong communication to the party concerned so as to take steps within the time prescribed for taking appropriate remedy. In the original proceedings, the Trial Court is not empowered to extend any limitation. Thus, the Trial Court is duty bound to consider the application on merit and bound to adjudicate the grounds as raised by the petitioners in its application.

¶108

If any suit is barred by law and same is required to be instituted in accordance with particular legal provision before a specific forum then the Trial Court is duty bound to consider the ground in light of the provision of law. The court is duty bound to answer the question raised by party concerned. Herein several legal provisions were raised by learned Senior Advocate about the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the instant matter but none of them were considered by learned Trial Court.

(15 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26591]

[CR-58/2012]

Considering aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has neither considered the grounds raised in the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC nor tried to address the legal position, therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the instant revision petition and remit back the matter to the Trial Court.

¶113

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition, is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 in Civil Suit No. 80/2011, is hereby set aside and the mater is remitted back to the Trial Court with direction for fresh disposal of application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC in accordance with law, as early as possible.

¶114

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶115

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶116

PKS/503

Arun Kumar Jain Son of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), v. Smt. Manorama Wife of Shripalji Daughter of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Jain Son of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), v. Smt. Manorama Wife of Shripalji Daughter of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli)

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

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited(Riico), Vs Raj Kumar Jain S/O Shri Pukhraj

Amar Saxena and Ors. Vs Aashray Saxena

Rajesh Sargra @ Babu S/O Rampratap Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Bhoori Devi W/O Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Vs Shri Bajrang Singh S/O Shri Ramchandra Singh

Jaitoon Vs Smt Rashida and Ors.

Smt Shakila W/O Alte Shri Taufiq Ali, Vs Aslam S/O Shri Yakub Ali Khan