Dismissed

Mukesh Goyal Son of Shri Shivshankar Goyal, v. Rajesh Gehlot Son of Shri Ramchadnra Gehlot

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2024CR/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition by a defendant against dismissal of his Order VII Rule 11 CPC application to reject an injunction suit concerning land described as residential in the plaint. The High Court held that only a meaningful reading of the plaint is permissible at this stage, found no merit, and dismissed the revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mukesh Goyal Son of Shri Shivshankar Goyal, Vs Rajesh… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:16469]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 91/2024

¶4

Mukesh Goyal Son Of Shri Shivshankar Goyal, Resident Of Civil Lines, Ajmer/director Of Prakhar Infrastructure Developers Private Ltd. 381, Naya Bazar, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajesh Gehlot Son Of Shri Ramchadnra Gehlot, Resident Of 707, Moti Vihar Colony, Ramnagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer.

¶8

Jaisingh Rawat Son Of Ugam Singh Rawat, Resident Of Sarpanch-Ka-Bada, Kotda, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Alok Chaturvedi
	Mr. Shailendra Kumar
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

02/04/2024

¶14

Instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner defendant aggrieved from order dated 23.01.2024 in civil suit No. 91/2023 passed by learned Civil Judge Ajmer City (West). The trial court has dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by petitioner defendant. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the plaintiff respondents had filed a suit for injunction before the trial court for seeking relief for an agricultural land, in tenency of plaintiff and same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

[2024:RJ-JP:16469]

[CR-91/2024]

(2 of 3)

case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (minor) through Natural Guardian AIRONLINE 2019 SC 2377.

¶19

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. For disposal of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court cannot travel beyond the plaint and document annexed with the plaint. At this stage only a meaningful reading of the plaint is required. Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring judgments in the cases of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 137, Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company (2007) 5 SCC 614, Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra (2003) 15 SCC 157 and Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315 in the case of Eldeco Housing And Industries Limited vs Ashok Vidyarthi 2023 INSC 1043 has observed that no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of decision of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. While considering the application, if the court is of the opinion after a meaningful reading of the plaint that the suit is vexatious and without any merit and barred by law then the court is justified in dismissal of the suit.

¶20

In case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubendra Pilania (minor) through Natural Guardian (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the situation wherein a suit of declaration of khatedari right was pending before the revenue court and during pendency of the khatedari right on agricultural land the suit was filed before

[2024:RJ-JP:16469]

[CR-91/2024]

(3 of 3)

the civil court, in view of admitted fact that the land was an agricultural land.

¶25

Herein, a bare perusal of plaint indicated that the disputed property is a residential plot situated in Khasra No. 662/1732 and total area is of 142 sq. yards. The vicinity of the dispute property is also mentioned which indicated that arising out of a dispute about a residential plot the plaint was filed for protection of right by the plaintiffs. Therefore the status of the property according to plaint is residential plot. The mere fact that khasra No. 662/1732 was mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint does not mean that it is an agricultural land. At this stage this court cannot enter into the defence raised by the defendant in para No.2 and 4 of the application indicating that Khasra No. 662/1732 raqba 0.00200 hectare is Gairmumkin chah.

¶26

Considering the averments in the plaint, the trial court has rightly considered and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, no ground is made out for interference by this court.

¶27

In view of aforesaid, instant revision petition filed aggrieved from order dated 23.01.2024 in civil suit No. 91/2023 is hereby dismissed.

¶28

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶30

PREETI VALECHA /29

Mukesh Goyal Son of Shri Shivshankar Goyal, v. Rajesh Gehlot Son of Shri Ramchadnra Gehlot

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mukesh Goyal Son of Shri Shivshankar Goyal, v. Rajesh Gehlot Son of Shri Ramchadnra Gehlot

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra @ Pappu and Ors. Vs State

Paras Mal Jain Son of Prem Chand, Vs New India Assurance Company Limited

Nathu Lal S/O Shri Dhanna Lal, Vs Ratan Singh S/O Shri Prabhu Singh

Abdul Jabbar Vs State and Ors.

Rajesh S/O Sh. Ramvilas, Vs 1/1. Gulab Bai W/O Puranmal

Vedprakash Son of Late Shri Shivdayal Vs State of Rajasthan