The court clarified that the merits of the case should not influence the decision on an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 & 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961 ('the Court Fees Act1) and under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, have been rejected.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1 seeking permanent injunction, inter-alia, on the ground that he was in possession of the suit property and that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 came on the suit land alongwith one Ramnarayan and threatened that he will be dispossessed. Based on the said submission, prayer for permanent injunction was made in the suit.

3. The petitioner and other defendants filed an application under Sections 10 & 11 of the Court Fees Act, inter-alia, on the ground that the court fees paid was deficient and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed and application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, claiming that the plaint was barred by law and as the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, the same was liable to be rejected.

4. The trial court, after considering all the issues as raised, came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the application filed, inasmuch as, the land in question was converted from agriculture to abadi and therefore, the objection based on provisions of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act1) had no application, the allegation that the plaint was barred under the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) CPC could not be taken into consideration at the stage of application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and with respect to the plea raised regarding the plaintiff being not in possession and filing suit for injunction only, it was held that as the said aspect of possession itself was in dispute, the same also could not be determined at the stage of application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

5. Qua the court fees, it was held that only account of deficient court fees, plaint cannot be rejected as under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(b) CPC only if court fee is not paid, after being called upon to pay the deficient fees, that the plaint can be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendants. It was submitted that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 42(b) of the Act and that the earlier suit, which was filed for similar relief, was withdrawn without any liberty and therefore, the present suit was liable to be dismissed. Further, simple suit for injunction in absence of possession was also liable to be rejected.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supported the order impugned.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and have also perused a copy of the plaint, which was made available by learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff indicated that the suit property was part of abadi area, which aspect was determined in previous proceedings held between the parties.

10. Further submissions were made that the plaintiff was threatened by the defendants for dispossession from the suit property and based on the same, permanent injunction was sought.

11. The various pleas, which have been raised by the petitioner, claiming that the land in question was agriculture in nature and therefore, the allegations made regarding the transfer by defendants No.1 to 5, who were members of Scheduled Caste to a Non-Scheduled Caste person, was barred by provisions of Section 42(b) of the Act, the suit was barred by provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) CPC on account of withdrawal of the previous suit without seeking liberty and that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action as a simple suit for possession in absence of possession over the suit property was not maintainable, we