Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Rekha Borana, J.
Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Ram Dayal & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 9 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Application - The court rejected the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it did not contain any grounds for dismissal of the suit. The court held that the mere fact that the suit was filed on incorrect facts was not sufficient to grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, and that the suit could not be rejected at the threshold based on this ground alone.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial court, as it did not contain any specific grounds for dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's application did not raise any valid grounds for rejection of the suit, and cited a recent case to support its decision that the plaintiff not being entitled to any relief in the suit cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint at the threshold.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 contained valid grounds for rejection of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere fact that the suit was filed on incorrect facts was not sufficient to reject the suit at the threshold, and cited a recent case to support its decision.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the defendant was advised to raise any appropriate objections before the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Borana, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2022 whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
2. The application of the defendant has been rejected by the trial Court with a specific finding that the applicant had not mentioned any of the grounds as available to him under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The only averment made in the application is that the suit is filed on incorrect facts and that there is no joint electricity connection of the plaintiff and the defendant, on the basis of which, the relief as prayed for in the suit can be granted to the plaintiff.
3. The trial Court reached to a specific finding that no ground to the effect that the suit is barred by any law or that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint, has been taken by the defendant in his application.
4. This Court also perused the application as filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11, CPC which has been annexed with the present revision petition.
5. A perusal of the same makes it clear that the said application only states the fact that there is separate electricity connection of the plaintiff and the defendant and both of them are using it independently. It has further been stated in the application that the suit has been preferred on a total wrong fact with an averment that there is a joint electricity connection, therefore, the suit being filed on the wrong facts, the relief of declaration as prayed for cannot be granted.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the facts as averred in the application cannot be a ground for dismissal of the suit in terms of Order VII Rule 11, CPC. It has nowhere been the averment of the defendant that the suit is barred by any law or that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint.
7. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the latest case of Gurdev Singh vs. Harvinder Singh [SLP (C) No.19018/2022] decided on 09.11.2022, the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. This Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 21.11.2022. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is barred in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. No such ground had been raised before the Trial Court and therefore, the said ground cannot be taken into consideration by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise the appropriate objections, if any, before the Trial Court.
9. The stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
The plaintiff not being entitled to any relief in the suit cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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 rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be supported by clear reasoning, and failure to provide such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action if new instances of trespass are claimed, necessitating a trial on the merits.
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
