The court affirmed that a plaint must show a valid cause of action to proceed, and suppression of material facts alone does not justify dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 20-9-2023 passed in Title Suit No. 36 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gogari Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby the learned Sub Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC'). The petitioner is defendant in Title Suit No. 326 of 2021 filed by opposite parties for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with regard to the suit property. It is further prayed that if the plaintiffs are found dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit, a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and also for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the land of Khata No.159 Plot No.281 and Khata No. 160 Plot No.280 admeasuring 5 acres 86 decimals and 3 acres 44 decimals was acquired in the name of Nageshwar Prasad Singh in a joint Hindu family. It is further pleaded that in an amicable settlement amongst the descendants of Jhumak Singh, the suit land was jointly allotted to the plaintiffs and they have been in peaceful possession over the same. The said land was originally purchased by one Suraj Narayan Prasad through auction sale and the sale certificate was granted to him and possession of the suit land was also given to him by the process of the Court. Suraj Narayan Prasad, the auction purchaser, sold this land to the joint family consisting of the descendants of Jhumak Singh and sale deed was executed in the name of Nageshwar Prasad Singh and, thus this joint family came in possession over the suit land of plot Nos.281 and 280. It is further contended that Nageshwar Prasad Singh executed a registered deed of 'PATTANAMA' in favour of Kashi Prasad Tiwari, who also executed a registered deed of ‘KABULIYAT’ on 07-09-1943 with regard to 11 Bighas of land consisting of plot nos.281 and 280. Thereafter, Kashi Prasad Tiwari settled the aforesaid 11 Bighas of land to Nageshwar Prasad Singh in the year 1944 through ‘HUKUMNAMA’. Accordingly, the name of Nageshwar Prasad Singh was mutated in the revenue records of Ex-landlord and on payment of rent, receipt was issued to him as ‘raiyat’ of the said 11 Bighas of land and after acceptance of rent, Jamabandi No.1 was opened in the name of Nageshwar Prasad Singh and also rent receipt was issued in his name by the State regularly.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that recently when the plaintiffs met the Halka Karmachari for paying ground rent and for obtaining the rent receipt, the Halka Karmachari, in collusion with the defendant, did not accept the rent and got a notice issued to the plaintiffs in collusion with C.O. Parbatta. The C.O., in turn, without any reason referred the matter to Additional District Magistrate, Khagaria ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘ADM Khagaria’) making an unfounded request that whether the up-to-date rent receipt should be issued to the plaintiffs or not and by such order not only put the title of the plaintiffs to jeopardy rather his order also emboldened the defendant and the defendant thereafter started illegal interference in the possession of the plaintiffs. The further case of the plaintiffs, as per their plaint, is that the learned ADM, Khagaria by his order dated 25/01