Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Asharam – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Board Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1178/2020
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - The court held that the relief prayed for in the suit was not only against the Government officials, and since multiple reliefs were sought, the non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC was not a sufficient ground for dismissal at the preliminary stage. The court emphasized that the correction in the revenue records could only be made after the issue of declaration or permanent injunction is decided by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of a suit on the ground that notices under Sections 80 and 80(2) CPC were not served upon the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief prayed for in the suit was not solely against the Government officials, and the non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC was not a sufficient ground for dismissal at the preliminary stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the grounds for dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the requirement of serving notice under Section 80 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief prayed for in the suit was not solely against the Government officials, and the non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC was not a sufficient ground for dismissal at the preliminary stage due to the multiple reliefs sought in the suit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Against the order dated 17.07.2019, the petitioner preferred revision as well as review before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which were also rejected vide orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Balu Ram preferred a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner who is respondent in the suit preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that notices under Sections 80 and 80(2) CPC were not served upon the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the service of such notice was a condition precedent for the maintainability of the suit and since the same was not served, the suit proceedings should have been dismissed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC will figure in the category of subclause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh committed an error while rejecting the application so preferred by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the Board of Revenue committed an error while rejecting the revision petition and the review petition preferred by the petitioner maintaining the order dated 17.07.2019.
4. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dayanand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Raj. 257; judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Natwerlal M. Badiani reported in (2001) 2 GLR 1378 and the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Y. Savarimuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4495 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30945-30946 of 2015). He, therefore, prays that the writ petition and the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be allowed and the plaint preferred by the respondents may be rejected.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh and the revisional and review orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer submits that the relief prayed for in the plaint is not only against the Government officials as there are other prayers in the suit which have been sought for against the private respondents. He further submits that the relief against the Government officials will be granted only after the trial court passes a decree of declaration and permanent injunction. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected as the relief prayed for in the suit requires adjudication of the issues after adducing the evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh and the revisional and review orders dated 01.08.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer along with other relevant record of the case.
7. The admitted position in the present case is that the Government officials are one of the respondents in the suit preferred by the plaintiff, wherein one of the prayers sought for is for correction of the revenue entries. Besides this prayer, there are other prayers which have been sought for by the plaintiff against the private respondents, wherein the permanent injunction along with the declaration has been pr
The sufficiency of grounds for dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the requirement of serving notice under Section 80 CPC for multiple reliefs sought in a suit.
A party has the right to seek corrections in revenue records, and questions of fact are to be determined by trial courts, not through writ intervention.
The proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be disposed of before trial; failure constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting revision.
The affidavit discrepancies regarding property dues do not invalidate a plaint's cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which remains subject to resolution by the trial court.
Plaint cannot be rejected when it discloses cause of action.
The Civil Court is the proper forum for seeking a declaration of title over immovable property, and the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC can be dispensed with if justified.
Sections 151 and 152 CPC are limited to clerical corrections and do not allow for substantive reviews of prior judgments.
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
