Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Girvar Singh S/o Late Shri Sher Singh Ji – Petitioner
Versus
Sultan Singh S/o Late Shri Swaroop Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 159 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151, Order 7 Rule 11 - Suit for permanent injunction - Property remains undivided - Petition preferred against order whereby application preferred by defendant has been rejected – An application for prayer, in garb of inherent powers of Court, cannot be entertained on grounds and for same reliefs twice by a Court.
Finding of the Court:
An application under Section 151, CPC cannot go into merits of suit as same can be decided only after complete adjudication of issues on basis of evidence led by parties - So far as fact of agreement/settlement of year 1951 and subsequent sale-deeds are concerned, as rightly held by Court below, same are subject matter to be proved/disproved by evidence and Court cannot, on an application under Section 151, CPC, dwell into facts and record any finding on merits at stage - Court does not find any ground to interfere with order.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. In the present matter, on 06.01.2023, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the revision petition was directed to be listed for final hearing on 20.01.2023. On 20.01.2023, the matter was directed to be listed on 24.02.2023. On 24.02.2023, none of the counsels appeared as they were abstaining from work. Mr. Sultan Singh, respondent No. 1, was present in person on that date and he submitted that because of the interim order operating in the matter, the complete proceedings have been stayed and he is suffering an irreparable injury therefore, the matter may be heard. In view of the submissions made and in view of the fact that the counsels were abstaining from work, in the interest of justice, the matter was directed to be listed on 09.03.2023. On 09.03.2023 also, none of the counsels appeared but Mr. Sultan Singh, respondent No. 1 was present in person. He again requested the matter to be heard but again on that date as none had appeared for the petitioner, in the interest of justice, the matter was directed to be listed on 13.03.2023. However, it was made clear on that date that even if none appears for the petitioner on the next date, matter would be heard.
2. On 13.03.2023, Mr. Hari Singh son of petitioner-Girvar Singh remained present in person and respondent No. 1 Mr. Sultan Singh as well as respondent No. 2/2 Prithvipal Singh were also present in person. A request was made by Mr. Hari Singh that he would submit written synopsis and the citations relied upon by him by the next date therefore, two days’ time may be granted to him for the purpose. In view of the request made, time was granted to both the parties to submit written synopsis along with the citations relied upon by them and the matter was directed to be listed on 16.03.2023 i.e. today.
3. Today, Mr. Hari Singh son of petitioner-Girvar Singh is present in person. Mr. Sultan Singh respondent No. 1 and Mr. Prithvipal Singh respondent No. 2/2 are also present in person. Written synopsis as well as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 have been submitted.
4. It has been submitted in the written synopsis by the petitioner that the said synopsis has been prepared and being filed by himself as the counsel showed his inability to do so because of the strike of lawyers. A perusal of the synopsis as submitted shows that the same comprises of all the possible grounds which could be raised by the petitioner and all the judgments as relied upon in support of the contentions have been filed along with the written synopsis. So far as the strike of lawyers is concerned, it is relevant to note that the lawyers are abstaining from work since 19.02.2023 and after that the present matter has been listed thrice before the Court. Only in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Today, both the contesting parties are present before the Court and even the written synopsis along with the citations as relied upon by them have been submitted, therefore, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter any further.
5. Petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
2. Sakuntala Devi vs. Kamlesh, Second Appeal (D) No. 132 of 2016, dated 02.05.2016
3. T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, 1977 (4) SCC 467
6. Respondents have relied upon the following judgments:
2. Padam Sen and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218
7. I have gone through the written synopsis as submitted by both the parties and even the judgments relied upon by them.
8. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Court below’) whereby the application under Secti
Order 7 Rule 11 provides for rejection of a suit at threshold if same does not disclose any cause of action or if same is specifically barred by any law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intentional relinquishment or omission in the previous suit for the application of Order II Rule 2 CPC and the need for ident....
The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the....
The application for rejection of the plaint has to show that the suit is barred by law and the said bar should appear from the pleadings of the plaintiff itself. The court found that the learned Tria....
The judgment establishes the principle that the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, and doe....
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided based solely on the averments in the plaint. The court emphasized that such issues require evidence and should be ....
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit and the averments in the plaint are crucial for deciding su....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed only if it is necessary to determine the real issue in controve....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
