Dismissed¶43

Abdul and Ors. v. Badlu Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2025CW/12354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; Section 151 CPC; counter claim; cancellation of sale deed; refund of sale consideration with interest; rejection of counter claim application; writ petition dismissed; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Alwar; Kishangarh Bas; Mundawar; Civil Suit No.161/2011; CW-12354/2018; Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 48 AIC 84. Relevant for: maintainability of a purchaser's counter claim for refund of price with interest in a suit by vendors/heirs for cancellation of the sale deed; trial court's power to entertain such counter claim notwithstanding an Order VII Rule 11 objection.

What did the court decide?

In the court's considered opinion, respondent No.6 had rightly filed the counter claim in the plaintiffs' suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants in his favour. ¶40

Abdul and Ors. Vs Badlu Ram and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.6 (the purchaser under the sale deed sought to be cancelled) had the right to file a counter claim against the defendants in the plaintiffs' suit for cancellation of the sale deed, i.e., whether the trial court rightly dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶33

Court's answer

In the court's considered opinion, respondent No.6 had rightly filed the counter claim in the plaintiffs' suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants in his favour.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The counter claim sought that if the plaintiffs' cancellation suit were allowed, the defendants be directed to repay to respondent No.6 the amount paid by him, along with interest thereon.

¶40

Key takeaways

The counter claimant sought relief not only against the defendants but also against the plaintiffs (the judgment prints this as 'Respondent No.2'), which supported upholding the counter claim.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge (Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.), order dated 15/01/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12354/2018: defendants-petitioners challenged the order dated 26.04.2018 of the Additional District Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, in Civil Suit No.161/2011 ('Badluram Vs. Hurmat'), whereby the trial court dismissed their application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC directed against the counter claim filed by respondent No.6 (Jagdeesh Prasad Khurana), the purchaser under the sale deed that plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 5 had sued to cancel. Held: since the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of respondent No.6, the latter rightly filed a counter claim seeking repayment of the amount paid by him, with interest, if the cancellation succeeded; the counter claimant also sought relief against the plaintiffs themselves. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed; pending application(s), if any, also stood dismissed. Reliance placed by defendants' counsel on Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Ors., (2006) 48 AIC 84 (Supreme Court), is recorded at ¶37.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12354/2018

¶3

Abdul Son Of Late Shri Hurmat

¶4

Haneef Son Of Late Shri Hurmat

¶5

Haka Son Of Late Shri Hurmat

¶6

Salem Son Of Late Shri Hurmat

¶7

Mst. Jaitooni Widow Of Mahmood

¶8

Sahun Son Of Mahmood

¶9

Mst. Rukhseena

¶10

Nanni Son Of Mahmood, Resident Of Village Jhirandiya Icchaka, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶11

---Defendants-Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

Badlu Ram Son Of Shri Sita Ram, Residents Of Beejwad Chauhan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶14

Mst. Mishri Devi Widow Of Late Shri Hari Singh

¶15

Omwati Daughter Of Late Shri Hari Singh

¶16

Nirmala Daughter Of Late Shri Hari Singh

¶17

Sumitra Daughter Of Late Shri Hari Singh, All Are Legal Heirs Of Late Shri Hari Singh By Caste Jat, Residents Of Beejwad Chauhan, Tehsil Mundawar, District, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶18

Plaintiffs/Respondents

¶19

Jagdeesh Prasad Khurana Son Of Shri Malik Chand Khurana, Resident Of Kishangarh Bas, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶20

Defendant/Respondent

¶21

Mst. Nizarbi Widow Of Late Shri Hurmat

¶22

Islam Son Of Late Shri Hurmat, Both By Caste Mev, Resident Of Village Jhirandiya Icchaka, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rahul Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mritunjya Sharma, Adv.

¶25

(2 of 4)

¶26

[CW-12354/2018]

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶28

Order

¶29

15/01/2025

¶30

The civil writ petition has been filed by the petitionersdefendant Nos. 1 to 5 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.161/2011 titled as “Badluram Vs. Hurmat”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶31

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed against the defendants, which was executed by them in favour of respondent No.6.

¶32

Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the respondent No.6 filed a written statement of the plaint and filed counter claim.

¶33

Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the respondent No.6 had no right to file the counter claim against the defendants. So, counter claim filed by the respondent No.6 should have been disallowed but the trial court vide order dated 26.04.2018 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶34

Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that if respondent No.6 wanted to seek any relief against the defendants, he had a right to file fresh/separate suit against them. So, the

¶35

(3 of 4) [CW-12354/2018]

¶36

petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the trial court be set-aside.

¶37

Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Ors. reported in (2006) 48 AIC 84:.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, which was executed by the defendants in favour of respondent No.6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 further submitted that if said sale deed is cancelled, then respondent No.6 is entitled to get the amount with interest as paid by him to the defendants. So, the trial court rightly included the counter claim filed by the respondent No.5. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶40

It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, which was executed by the defendants in favour of respondent No.6. So, in my considered opinion, respondent No.6 had rightly filed the counter claim to the effect that if the said suit filed by the plaintiffs is allowed, then direction be given to the defendants to repay the amount paid by him along-with interest thereon. Respondent No.2 has not only sought the relief against the defendants but he has also sought relief against the plaintiffs as well. So, the present petition being devoid

¶41

[CW-12354/2018]

¶42

(4 of 4)

¶43

of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed.

¶45

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶46

Gourav/36

Abdul and Ors. v. Badlu Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul and Ors. v. Badlu Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs Urban Improvement Trust

Kamlesh Devi Wife of Late Kailash Chand Vs General Manager

Babu Khan Son of Ilahi Baksh Vs Aas Mohammed Son of Mullan Khan

Hari Mohan S/O Prabhu Lal Vs Shiv Kumar

Sanni Devi W/O Sitaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Nawal Modani Son of Shri Gauri Shankar Modani Vs Jatan Singh Son of Shri Khangar Singh